advanced_candle_pattern

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe scan. The description adds the 'multi-timeframe data' nuance and parameter hints (min_size_increase, pattern_length) that suggest analysis logic. However, it doesn't disclose specifics like data source freshness, performance considerations, or what happens when no patterns match. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is fair.

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 a compact paragraph followed by an Args block that's mostly a restatement of the schema. The prose line front-loads the purpose, and the Args block is terse. It's efficient with no waste, though formatting could be cleaner.

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?

For a 5-param scan tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the basics but misses important context: what the output looks like, how results are ranked, whether it needs an exchange symbol or scans a watchlist, and what happens when no pattern is found. Sibling tools like top_gainers likely have more context. This leaves an agent guessing about the return format and search scope.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It lists each parameter with a brief meaning (e.g., 'Exchange name', 'Minimum percentage increase in candle size'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema names. However, it doesn't specify valid values or formats (e.g., exchange name casing, pattern_length range beyond a hint in the name). This adds value but could be richer.

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 starts with a clear statement of what the tool does: 'Advanced candle pattern analysis using multi-timeframe data.' This distinguishes it from siblings like consecutive_candles_scan and volume_breakout_scanner, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling. The verb 'analysis' is somewhat generic, but combined with the resource and multi-timeframe qualifier, the purpose is clear.

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?

The description doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like consecutive_candles_scan or volume_confirmation_analysis. The phrase 'Advanced... using multi-timeframe data' implies a use case, but there's no direct guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer. This is implied rather than explicit.

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