get_market_analysis_timeframe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a 'human-friendly timeframe label' but does not specify format, data source, or any constraints like rate limits or permissions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic output.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to grasp quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context about the tool's behavior, output format, or how it integrates with other tools, making it inadequate for a tool that likely deals with financial timeframes in a complex server environment.

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 one parameter 'period' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what 'period' means, its possible values, or how it affects the output. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's semantics unclear.

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 states the tool 'Return a human-friendly timeframe label,' which clarifies its purpose as providing a formatted timeframe label. However, it lacks specificity about what 'market analysis' entails or what context this timeframe is used for, making it somewhat vague compared to more detailed sibling tools like get_historical_k_data or get_recent_trading_range.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include get_last_n_trading_days, get_recent_trading_range, and get_trade_dates, which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, but the description does not mention any distinctions, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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