analyze_support_resistance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies read-only analysis of historical data, which is non-destructive. But it doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or limitations. Functional description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences; reasonably concise. But the mixed Japanese/English could be streamlined. Front-loads the key function.

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?

No output schema, no parameter explanations, and 4 parameters left undocumented. For an analysis tool with siblings, more context is needed for complete understanding.

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 0%, and description does not mention any parameters (pair, topN, tolerance, lookbackDays). No guidance on what these parameters control or their default values.

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 clearly states it auto-detects support/resistance/key levels and analyzes contact frequency/strength/breakdown. Verb+resource is specific, distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools that focus on other indicators like BB, Fibonacci, etc. However, the Japanese/English mix may slightly reduce clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_fibonacci or analyze_market_signal. The description describes function but not context for selection.

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