consecutive_candles_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the scan logic and the result limit, but it does not disclose output structure, ordering, or other behavioral details that an agent might need.

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 compact: a single-sentence purpose followed by a clear argument list. There is no filler or redundant restating of schema defaults, and the most important information is 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?

All six parameters are documented, which is helpful. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe expected result fields or ordering; exchange valid values are vague ('BINANCE, KUCOIN, etc.'); and bearish min_growth semantics are ambiguous. This makes the description adequate but incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter: exchange examples, timeframes, pattern types, candle_count range, min_growth, and limit. It does not fully clarify how min_growth should be interpreted for bearish/shrinking patterns, which is a notable ambiguity.

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 a specific action ('Scan for coins') and a specific pattern ('consecutive growing/shrinking candles pattern'), so the tool's core purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling scanners like advanced_candle_pattern, but the pattern focus and 'coins' scope make it reasonably distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling scanners such as advanced_candle_pattern, bollinger_scan, or volume_breakout_scanner. The description explains what it does but not when it is the preferred choice or when alternatives should be used.

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