trade_get_indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds details on the read-only behavior ('computes nothing on live capital') and outlines the exact return schema and error handling. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but these are likely system-level.

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 well-organized with a clear summary, structured Args/Returns, examples, and a usage note. It is a bit lengthy but every section adds value. The return schema could be omitted if the output schema were visible, but the text version is helpful for quick reference.

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's simplicity (single symbol, read-only) and the wealth of annotations and input schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, input parameters with defaults, output format and schema, error handling, and usage examples. No obvious gaps remain.

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 description reiterates parameter meanings (symbol, response_format) with examples like case-insensitivity and default format. Given that the input schema already contains descriptions and coverage is 0%, the description compensates adequately by adding practical context, though it does not introduce new constraints beyond the schema.

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 retrieves the latest technical indicators for a single NSE symbol, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'technical indicators'. It distinguishes from siblings (backtesting, portfolio, risk) by focusing on real-time indicator snapshots.

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 explicitly advises not to use the tool for placing trades, reinforcing its read-only nature. Examples illustrate appropriate queries, and the sibling tools cover different domains, making usage context clear. However, no direct comparison with specific sibling tools is provided.

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