detect_macd_cross

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the dual-mode behavior, screening parameters (crossType, limit, sortBy, etc.), and deep analysis features (forming detection, stats). It does not mention destructive actions, auth, or rate limits, but as a read-only analysis tool this is acceptable. Score 4.

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, using bullet points for screening parameters. It is front-loaded with purpose and mode distinction. The mixed Japanese/English might reduce clarity for some agents, but overall it is structured efficiently. Score 4.

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 does not explain return values (e.g., what fields are in the results). It mentions '上位N件' but lacks detail on output structure. Additionally, error conditions or edge cases are not covered. For a complex tool with nested objects, this is a gap. Score 3.

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 55%, and the description adds value by explaining the role of parameters in context (e.g., crossType for screening, pair for mode selection). It does not fully compensate for all 11 parameters but provides meaningful semantic grouping (screen parameters). Score 4.

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 that the tool detects MACD crosses (golden/dead cross) and distinguishes two modes: screening multiple pairs (when pair is omitted) and deep single-pair analysis with forming detection and historical stats. This specificity and differentiation from sibling tools like analyze_ema_snapshot justify a 5.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'pair省略: 複数銘柄スクリーニング' and 'pair指定: 単一ペア深掘り分析'. While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide. Score 4.

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