detect_divergence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the pivot-based algorithm, the flexible oscillator parameter, and the return content (pivot values and bar offsets), which goes beyond a vague statement. However, it omits potential edge cases like empty results or insufficient data, so it is not maximally transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, opening with the core purpose, then the method, then parameter specifics and return values. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the detection logic, return content, and gives examples of oscillator specs. Minor omissions include the role of 'limit' and any prerequisites, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of oscillator and left/right, which are tool-specific and crucial. However, it leaves standard parameters like symbol, exchange, timeframe, and limit unexplained, meaning roughly half the parameters lack semantic detail beyond their names.

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 detects bullish and bearish divergence between price and an oscillator, which is a specific and distinct action. It explicitly distinguishes this from siblings like detect_cross (crossovers) and detect_patterns (patterns) by naming the exact concept of divergence.

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 when to use this tool by explaining its function, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide exclusions. The oscillator format and pivot window details hint at usage scenarios, yet there is no direct guidance on when to choose divergence detection over other analysis tools.

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