Get indicators and technical rating

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that values are precomputed, TradingView-only, and include a rating scale, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, symbol validation limits, authentication needs, or response format details, leaving notable transparency gaps.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the key caveat and then the indicator list. The long list is necessary because the schema lacks an enum for indicators, but it does make the description verbose. Overall, each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, data source, rating scale, and valid indicator values. It lacks response-structure details and explicit alternative routing, but what an agent needs to invoke it correctly is largely present.

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 adds meaningful value beyond the schema by enumerating the exact valid indicator names (RSI, MACD.macd, SMA20, etc.) and clarifying the rating scale associated with Recommend.* indicators. This compensates for the schema's generic 'Indicator names' description.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it retrieves TradingView's precomputed indicator values and a Strong Buy..Strong Sell technical rating at a chosen timeframe. It also distinguishes itself from the 'licensed fallback' by noting that fallback does not compute indicators, which differentiates it from data-provider siblings.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need actual indicator values, because 'the licensed fallback does not compute indicators.' It does not name sibling tools explicitly or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, but the TradingView-only caveat is a practical usage signal.

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