get_support_resistance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'levels and structure' entail in terms of output format. For a paid tool, the lack of transparency about data source or updates is a significant gap.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it mixes a prerequisite ('Paid Fintools MCP required') with the functional purpose, which reduces clarity. The sentence structure is adequate but not optimally front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the output contains (e.g., levels, zones, strengths). Given three parameters and an output schema, the description should provide context on how to interpret results or set parameters. It falls short of being complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (ticker, lookback, max_levels) are explained in the schema. The description does not compensate; it fails to describe any parameter, such as what lookback controls or how max_levels affects results. This makes it impossible for an agent to understand parameter usage without external knowledge.

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 'support/resistance levels and structure,' which indicates the tool returns support and resistance levels. However, it is somewhat vague and does not specify what 'structure' refers to. It is clear enough but lacks precision compared to a more explicit statement like 'Calculate and return support and resistance price levels and market structure zones for a given ticker.' The mention of 'Paid Fintools MCP required' is a prerequisite, not part of the core purpose.

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 provides only a condition ('Paid Fintools MCP required') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_technical_indicators or screen_stocks. It does not specify scenarios where support/resistance analysis is appropriate or mention any prerequisites beyond payment.

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