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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate those. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'latest', but does not disclose freshness, computation windows, or any other operational traits; the annotation coverage keeps this adequate rather than deficient.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists concrete indicators, and states the analytical purpose. Every clause contributes value with no redundancy.

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 tool has one required parameter fully documented in the schema, strong annotations covering side effects, and an output schema. The description supplies enough interpretive context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without further explanation.

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 100%, and the schema already explains the symbol parameter with an example. The description adds no new meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('latest technical indicators'), and target ('a cryptocurrency'), and then enumerates exact indicators (SMA, EMA, RSI, MACD, VWAP). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analysis-candlestick or analysis-historical.

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 implies when to use the tool by tying it to assessing momentum, trend direction, and overbought/oversold conditions, but it never explicitly states alternative tools or when not to use them. Context is present but comparative guidance is absent.

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