fibonacci_retracement

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

Annotations already convey read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't repeat that. It adds useful context about symbol formats and exchange lists, but it doesn't disclose what the output looks like or any other behavioral traits. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

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-organized with a clear purpose line followed by a bullet-like arg list. It's slightly verbose with multiple exchange examples, but each add value. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite thorough parameter documentation, the description omits any mention of the return value or output structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent has no indication of what the tool returns (e.g., retracement levels, support/resistance, etc.), leaving a critical gap for correct usage.

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 description compensates fully for the 0% schema coverage by detailing every parameter: symbol format with concrete examples across exchanges, the full list of exchanges, valid lookback periods, and timeframes with defaults. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 'Fibonacci retracement analysis for any stock or crypto symbol,' which is a specific verb-resource pairing. While it doesn't differentiate from siblings like bollinger_scan, the purpose is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bollinger_scan or volume_breakout_scanner. The description only explains parameters and gives examples, but offers no context for selecting this tool over others or any exclusions.

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