combined_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'POWER TOOL' label and the combined nature of the output, but doesn't detail what the response contains (e.g., structure of TA, sentiment score, news list). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some context but not deep behavioral detail.

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 clear purpose statement, usage guidance, example, and parameter list. It's front-loaded with the key differentiator. The 'POWER TOOL' label is slightly informal but not wasteful. The parameter list is compact and useful. Minor deduction for the informal label and slight redundancy in the parameter descriptions.

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 combined analysis tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it does, when to use it, and how to call it. It doesn't describe the output structure, but that's less critical given the tool's purpose is clear. The example call is helpful. A 4 is appropriate – it's complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention what the response includes.

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. It does explain the `symbol` parameter (bare ticker, no exchange prefix) and lists valid exchanges and timeframes. However, it doesn't add much beyond what the schema's defaults and types imply. The example call helps, but the description could be more explicit about parameter constraints (e.g., which exchanges are valid for which symbols). Baseline 3 is fair given the partial compensation.

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 combines TradingView technical analysis, news sentiment, and financial news for a single symbol. It uses a specific verb ('combined_analysis') and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like `coin_analysis` and `multi_timeframe_analysis`. The example call further clarifies usage.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you want TA AND sentiment AND news for one symbol in a single call') and provides alternatives for other cases: `coin_analysis` for indicators only, `multi_timeframe_analysis` for cross-timeframe trend alignment. This is clear routing guidance.

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