list_indicatorsList every indicator in the Owl Group Trading code library: slug, name, one-line summary, available platforms, the linked glossary concept, the verification tolerance, and the page URL. Returns the authoritative catalog so the answer comes from real data rather than a guess. Takes no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns a list of all indicators with specified fields and takes no arguments. It does not describe side effects, but the operation is obviously read-only and non-destructive, which is clear from context.
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 sentence that combines the action, the resource, the output fields, and the rationale. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant information.
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 no output schema, the description lists all expected return fields (slug, name, summary, platforms, glossary concept, tolerance, URL). It also clarifies the purpose (authoritative catalog), making the tool's behavior fully transparent for a listing operation with no parameters.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which adds value beyond the empty schema by confirming the agent need not worry about inputs.
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 'List every indicator in the Owl Group Trading code library' and enumerates the specific fields returned (slug, name, summary, platforms, etc.). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_indicator_code' by focusing on listing all indicators rather than retrieving code for one.
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 this tool is for obtaining an authoritative catalog of indicators, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling 'get_indicator_code'. It provides context ('answer comes from real data') but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists all available indicators, the other retrieves code for a specific indicator. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: list_indicators and get_indicator_code. The naming is descriptive and predictable.
Two tools is a minimal but appropriate count for a focused code library. It covers browsing and retrieval without unnecessary extras.
The tool surface is complete for its domain: listing indicators and retrieving their code. No missing operations for a read-only code library.