Analyze range setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the possible verdicts (COMPLETED, NOT_COMPLETED, NO_RANGE) and the structure of each result (support, resistance, rejections, break time). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate output shape.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and immediately provides the verdict taxonomy and output structure. There is zero fluff or repetition of schema content. Every word earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented there. The description nonetheless explains the verdicts and the components of each structure, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior. Given the low complexity (4 optional params, no nesting), the description covers everything needed for correct invocation.

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 100% and all parameters have descriptions, so the schema already documents days, symbol, end_date, and timeframe. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'the window', which is already implied by the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states a specific action ('Detect a range in the window') with clear scope, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_futures_bars and get_range_chart by focusing on analysis rather than data retrieval or charting. It also enumerates the verdicts, which clarifies the tool's core purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings (get_futures_bars, capture_chart, get_range_chart). It only describes what it does, not the conditions or use cases that would make it the preferred option. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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