detect_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool analyzes the most recent lookback candles and that each result includes bias and bars_ago. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior or side effects, but the context is fairly clear for an analysis tool.

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 fairly concise: two sentences with a clear first sentence and a detailed but compact list of recognized patterns. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds pattern detail. Slightly denser than necessary, but every sentence earns its place.

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 five parameters and no annotations, the description provides a good overview of the tool's capabilities and output fields, but leaves gaps about how to use the parameters (especially limit, exchange, timeframe). The output schema exists, which can cover return structure, so the description is moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'lookback' and references output fields 'bias' and 'bars_ago', but it does not clarify 'symbol', 'exchange', 'limit', or 'timeframe', nor does it explain the relationship between 'limit' and 'lookback'. This leaves significant parameter ambiguity.

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 function with a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('candlestick patterns'), and it enumerates many specific recognized patterns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_divergence or detect_cross, which target different analysis types.

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 usage: an agent should use this when it needs to identify candlestick patterns. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for divergence or indicator calculations). The guidance is present but not spelled out.

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