analyze_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It transparently explains the algorithmic behavior—building alternating swings, labeling HH/HL/LH/LL, inferring trend, and reporting BOS/CHoCH—but does not disclose edge cases, data requirements, or explicit read-only semantics; still, 'analyze' and the computation-heavy description make side effects unlikely.

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?

Two short paragraphs, summary first, then implementation details. No filler sentences; the code-formatted mentions of trend and left/right add structure without bloat.

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 covers the core algorithm and key parameters but lacks usage guidance and fuller parameter semantics. The existence of an output schema compensates for return-value documentation, but the low schema coverage and missing alternatives discussion leave gaps for a complex 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only elaborates left/right as the pivot confirmation window. Other parameters (symbol, exchange, timeframe, limit) are left to inference or defaults; given the low coverage, more parameter-level explanation is needed.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as market-structure analysis with a specific verb ('Analyze'), enumerates outputs (swing highs/lows, trend, BOS/CHoCH), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like compute_indicators or detect_patterns by focusing on alternating swing structure and breaks.

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 implies use for market-structure analysis but never explicitly states when to choose it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For instance, it doesn't contrast with find_support_resistance or detect_patterns, leaving the selection criteria to the agent's inference.

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