Chart & Indicator Analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond read-only annotations, it discloses that data is never estimated, takes ~30s in multi mode, filters signals by sample count and edge, and warns that win rates are historical not guarantees. These are valuable behavioral details not present in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but each sentence adds unique value: purpose, data source, interval modes, signal filtering, performance, and limitations. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers execution modes, indicator sets, historical win rates, and fallback guidance. It sufficiently prepares the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains the interval parameter, listing all valid values and their effects. It mentions 'a Pacifica market' but does not explicitly describe the symbol parameter's format or constraints, leaving a small gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs technical analysis on Pacifica markets using real candle data, and distinguishes between multi-timeframe playbook and single-interval deep snapshot modes. It is specific and actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear guidance on when to use multi vs single interval, and explicitly suggests pairing with market_context for regime context. However, it does not explicitly exclude any alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.