bollinger_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive. The description adds that it scans an entire exchange, returns a list of dicts on success, and returns a structured error envelope on any failure, which enriches the agent's expectations without contradicting 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 well structured with a purpose statement, explicit disambiguation, a usage example, and a clear Args block. It is longer than necessary but every section adds value. Minor redundancy like re-stating the tool name could be trimmed.

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 complexity of 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides exhaustive coverage: exchange lists, timeframe constraints, thresholds, return type, error handling, and a usage example. Since an output schema exists, not detailing the dict fields is acceptable.

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 fully compensates by enumerating exchange options (specifying crypto vs stock exchanges), valid timeframes with typical threshold hints, the meaning of bbw_threshold, and the limit cap. This is far beyond the bare schema types.

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 identifies the tool as a whole-exchange Bollinger Band Width squeeze scanner, differentiating it from sibling scanners and explicitly noting it is not the single-symbol Bollinger read (which is coin_analysis). The purpose is unambiguous with a specific verb and resource.

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 explicit when-to-use (whole exchange squeeze detection) and when-not-to-use (single symbol via coin_analysis), along with an example call and typical threshold values per timeframe. These are concrete selection criteria.

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