multi_agent_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the internal debate structure and the final trading decision, which goes beyond annotations, but it does not disclose behavior like latency, data dependencies, or return shape details.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is compact but information-dense, and the Returns section is a single clear sentence. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description explains the inputs and the general nature of the output, but with no output schema and no statement about edge cases, failure modes, or required data prerequisites, an agent only gets a partial picture. It is adequate for a first invocation but leaves the shape and limitations of the result under-specified.

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 carries the full burden for parameters. It does this well: symbol and exchange are given extensive concrete examples across crypto and stock markets, and timeframe is listed with valid intervals. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema definitions.

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 names a specific action ('Run a multi-agent debate') and a clear resource (a symbol), with the three agent angles (Technical, Sentiment, Risk) spelled out. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling analysis tools like multi_timeframe_analysis or combined_analysis.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as multi_timeframe_analysis, market_sentiment, or coin_analysis.

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