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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotation: it returns both daily and weekly timeframes, includes a plain-language read, and notes it provides the same data as the REST /indicators/{coin} endpoint. This helps the agent understand the output structure and scope without contradicting annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the category '[DRILL-DOWN]' and then enumerates indicators and outputs. Every phrase adds value, but it is somewhat long and could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the 'use for' guidance). Overall, it is concise and well-organized.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope. It covers the input semantics, the type of data returned (daily/weekly timeframes, plain-language read), and cross-references the REST endpoint. No critical information is missing for this low-complexity tool.

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 input schema has only one parameter (coin) with no description or enum, so the description must compensate. It does so by giving concrete examples ('BTC', 'ETH', 'SOL', 'XRP') and defining the parameter as a coin. While it doesn't explicitly state format requirements (e.g., uppercase symbols), the examples make the semantics clear enough for a single-parameter tool.

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 the tool's function: it returns technical indicators for a specific coin, listing the exact indicators (RSI, MACD, SMA/EMA, Stochastic, Fibonacci) and timeframes (daily/weekly). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning 'Use for momentum + Fib confluence with get_levels', making it specific to momentum and Fib analysis rather than generic market data.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use for momentum + Fib confluence with get_levels.' It names a complementary tool (get_levels) and explains the analytical purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with other indicator-related siblings like get_sentiment or get_positioning, so it stops short of a full 5.

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