analyze_fibonacci

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully cover behavior. It describes core functionality (swing detection, level calculation, history) but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature or other side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Three concise sentences covering purpose, functionality, and sibling recommendation. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, description is somewhat incomplete. It does not specify output format or details on reaction history. However, it provides essential functional context. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage. Description only briefly mentions swing detection and levels, but does not explain any of the five parameters (mode, pair, type, lookbackDays, historyLookbackDays), leaving the agent to infer from names. Insufficient compensation.

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?

Description states it performs Fibonacci analysis with automatic swing detection to calculate retracement/extension levels, including historical reaction data. It distinguishes from sibling analyze_mtf_fibonacci for multi-timeframe use, making purpose specific and clear.

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?

Explicitly mentions alternative sibling for multi-timeframe analysis, guiding when to use each. However, lacks other usage context or prerequisites (e.g., need for candle data).

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