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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists returned fields but says nothing about auth, rate limits, compute cost, caching, or whether indicators need a minimum bar count — behavioral traits an agent needs for a series-computation call.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core content listing front-loaded and the audience note placed last as a routing cue. No filler, though the content enumeration could be trimmed to make room for the missing parameter and behavior context.

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 description partly compensates for the absent output schema by naming the indicator fields an agent will receive. But with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters at 0% description coverage, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on `bars`/`interval` semantics or call behavior.

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 0%, and the description only obliquely maps to the parameters: 'one symbol' covers symbol, and 'series' hints at interval/bars. The crucial `bars` parameter (10–600, controlling series length) is never mentioned, and the ambiguity between 'Full indicator series' and a bounded `bars` argument is unresolved.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full indicator series for one symbol') and enumerates the payload contents (trend line, CVD, MACD histogram, RSI zone, compression flags), which is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_kline or get_signal, so an agent must infer that this returns derived indicators rather than raw candles or precomputed signals.

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?

'For callers building their own model' implies a target audience and hints at when to prefer this over a pre-baked signal tool, which is genuine implied routing. However, it never names an alternative or states a when-not condition, so the agent must guess how it relates to get_signal/get_signals.

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