analyze_currency_strength

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the composite score uses rate of change, RSI, SMA divergence, and volume, and operates on all JPY pairs. However, it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, real-time, or if it modifies data. The methodology disclosure is moderate.

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 concise, mixing Japanese and English, and includes a bracketed tag for context. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. The single sentence is efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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 no output schema, the description lacks details on return format (e.g., sorted list or scores). However, the parameters are well-documented. The tool's complexity (composite score) would benefit from more contextual completeness, but it is minimally adequate.

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 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it repeats general purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameter roles.

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 identifies the tool as a currency strength ranking and screening tool, using a composite score for all JPY pairs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on individual indicators (e.g., analyze_bb_snapshot, analyze_macd_cross) by offering a holistic strength assessment.

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 states the tool is for 'finding and screening notable issues,' which implies usage for discovery, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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