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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: exact candle count (200), source selection order (OKX, else Binance, else CoinGecko 4h aggregated), smoothing method, and the fact that indicators ignore the days parameter.

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?

A single dense sentence packs every essential fact: calculation method, data source fallback, candle aggregation, performance windows, and output intent. There is no wasted wording, and the core operation is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return shapes. It adequately covers inputs, data sourcing, and derivation logic. It leaves minor ambiguity around behavior when reference values are omitted, but the schema marks them optional and the core computation path is clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that days only affects performance lookback while indicators always use 200 closed daily candles, and by explaining what the reference RSI/ATR values are compared against. This adds meaning beyond the raw property names.

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 opens with a precise verb ('Recompute') and names exact resources: RSI(14), ATR(14) with Wilder smoothing, 1d/7d/30d performance, and deviation from reference values. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling price_crosscheck by focusing on technical indicators rather than price, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 clearly states the use case: verify independently calculated technical indicators against reference values such as RYO's. It gives concrete context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name the sibling alternative as a fallback.

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