romaco_thesis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like server-side vs local synthesis, result size (<2 KB), the instruction to offer drawing and ask first, and the required disclaimer. It lacks details on potential side effects but covers key behaviors.

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 main purpose. Every sentence adds value: prerequisite, token info, behavioral instruction, and disclaimer. No unnecessary words.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description fully explains the tool's input (none needed beyond loaded candles), output (thesis components), and special behaviors (stand aside, token usage, drawing offer). It is complete for a 0-parameter tool.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but explains the tool's output and behavior, which is sufficient.

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's purpose: to produce an actionable trade thesis with bull/bear debate, verdict, confidence, setup, and invalidation. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings like romaco_analyze_market and romaco_detect_patterns by focusing on thesis generation.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (load candles and setup chart) and indicates when the tool will stand aside. While it doesn't directly compare to siblings, the context is clear. It also warns not to call romaco_annotate automatically.

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