analyze_smc_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool returns only objective structural/geometric information and does not generate trade recommendations. It also specifies the scope (one Vietnamese stock) and mentions dynamic conditions like 'còn active' and 'gần nhất', giving a clear behavioral picture. Missing are aspects like rate limits or permissions, but for a read-only analysis tool these are minor.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose with a clear list of outputs, and the second sentence adds essential limitation context. Every phrase contributes value, with no redundant language.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It does this by listing the core SMC elements (swing points, trend labels, BOS/CHoCH, active FVG, liquidity sweep), which is sufficient for a model to understand the output. It also addresses how the results should be interpreted (as objective data, not signals). It could be more detailed about the exact structure or type of the returned data, but the list covers the essentials.

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 provides 100% coverage, with descriptions for all three parameters (symbol, resolution, count). The tool description does not add additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Phân tích cấu trúc Smart Money Concepts' for a Vietnamese stock, listing specific outputs like swing high/low, trend (HH/HL or LH/LL), BOS/CHoCH, active FVG, and nearest liquidity sweep. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as detect_macd_divergence or compute_bar_metrics, which focus on other technical aspects.

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 explicitly states what the tool does NOT do: it does not compute bullish/bearish bias or suggest entry/SL/TP, clarifying when not to rely on it for those decisions. It frames the output as objective structural data for Claude's own reasoning, implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other use cases.

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