analyze_stoch_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the snapshot-only nature and mentions zone/cross/divergence detection. However, it does not describe the output format, side effects (if any), or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 with two sentences and a warning, front-loading the purpose. However, the use of Japanese characters may reduce readability for non-Japanese speakers, and the structure could be slightly improved with clearer parameter hints.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what the analysis result contains, how parameters like kPeriod affect the output, or the return structure. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions stochastic components (%K, %D) but does not explain the six parameters (pair, type, limit, kPeriod, smoothD, smoothK). Users must infer meaning from context, which is insufficient.

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 it evaluates stochastic overbought/oversold/divergence zones and cross. It mentions 'latest status only' which differentiates it from time-series tools like prepare_chart_data. However, it could be more explicit about what specific analysis it performs compared to other analyze_* siblings.

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 warns that only latest values are provided and directs users to prepare_chart_data for time-series chart drawing. This clearly tells when not to use this tool and suggests an alternative, meeting the highest standard for usage guidance.

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