analyze_candle_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool detects patterns and returns context/historical stats, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or how historical statistics are computed. The description is too vague to adequately inform an AI agent about behavioral nuances.

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 very short and to the point, with a front-loaded list of patterns. It avoids unnecessary words and uses both Japanese and English for clarity. However, it could be slightly more structured, but given its brevity, it is appropriately concise.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, how to interpret results, limitations, or prerequisites. A more detailed description is needed for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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?

With only 30% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. It mentions no parameter details beyond the tool's overall function. The schema itself provides partial descriptions for some parameters (e.g., as_of, patterns, timeframe), but the description adds no value for the remaining parameters (e.g., window_days, focus_last_n, history_horizons).

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 candlestick patterns (doji, engulfing, hammer, harami) and provides context with historical statistics. It specifies the scope (1-3 bar patterns) and lists example patterns, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like detect_patterns, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 detecting candle patterns but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The context of sibling tools (e.g., detect_patterns) is not addressed.

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