find_support_resistance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the clustering process (grouping pivots within tolerance_pct), zone strength (touches), and output selection (nearest support/resistance). This provides meaningful behavioral insight, though it omits details like network dependencies or error handling.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: introducing the tool, detailing the grouping mechanism, and specifying the output. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff.

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 output, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, with six parameters and zero schema descriptions, the tool would benefit from more context on how exchange, limit, and max_levels influence results. The description is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for complex configurations.

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 compensate. It mentions tolerance_pct explicitly and implies the role of symbol/timeframe, but it does not explain limit, exchange, or max_levels. Since over half the parameters lack any explanation, the description adds limited value beyond the raw schema.

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 'finds clustered support/resistance zones from swing pivots', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_structure or detect_patterns by detailing the output: nearest support (below price) and resistance (above price) zones with distances.

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 for technical analysis to locate key price levels, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the algorithm and output but lacks any exclusion or comparison to sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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