This MCP server exposes 20 drawing tools with severely deficient schemas and descriptions. All tools share identical, vague input schemas with no type information for nested 'point' and 'context' objects. Descriptions are generic (20-50 chars) and fail to explain WHEN to use each tool or what distinguishes them. No output schemas are documented. The 'point' parameter is described as 'Drawing point coordinates' but lacks structure (x/y? lat/lon? pixel coords?). No error handling, validation guidance, or recovery paths. Tool names follow verb_noun pattern (positive), but parameter schemas are incomplete and descriptions are below the 50-200 char LLM-optimized baseline.

• Define the 'point' parameter structure explicitly: {"type": "object", "properties": {"x": {"type": "number", "description": "X coordinate in pixels or chart units"}, "y": {"type": "number", "description": "Y coordinate in pixels or chart units"}}, "required": ["x", "y"]}
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 characters explaining the financial use case. E.g., 'Creates an ABCD harmonic pattern for identifying potential reversal zones. Use when you have identified four price points forming a specific ratio pattern (typically 0.618 or 0.786 Fibonacci retracements).'
• Document output schema for each tool. Include fields like id, type, points, color, lineWidth, visible, seriesId with their types and descriptions.
• Add error handling guidance: 'Returns error if point coordinates are outside chart bounds or seriesId does not exist. Ensure coordinates are valid before calling.'
• Group similar tools (e.g., all Fibonacci variants) and provide a discovery tool or resource that lists available drawing types with their use cases, so LLMs can select the right one.