detect_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that display times are formatted according to the 'tz' parameter, structured data remains in UTC ISO, and results should be rendered via 'render_chart_svg' rather than outputting SVG directly. These details provide useful behavioral context beyond a basic description.

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 a mix of Japanese and English with multiple clauses and inline lists. While it conveys necessary information, it lacks clear structure and could be more concise. For example, the rendering instruction and timestamp formatting details could be presented more succinctly.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context about forming/completed detection, timezone handling, and rendering instructions. However, it does not describe the full return structure (e.g., data.patterns fields) or how the tool relates to siblings. An output schema would help, but its absence places a burden on the description to be more complete.

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?

The schema coverage is only 36%, so the description should compensate. It adds some meaning for the 'patterns' parameter with recommended parameters (e.g., swingDepth, tolerancePct) and aliases. However, most other parameters (like 'pair', 'type', 'view', 'limit') are left to their schema defaults without additional explanation in the description.

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 chart patterns (e.g., double top, head and shoulders, triangle) and mentions it integrates forming and completed patterns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_candle_patterns' or 'analyze_support_resistance' beyond the tool name.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions passing overlays to 'render_chart_svg' for visual confirmation, but does not explain when to choose this tool over other pattern detection or analysis tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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