get_technical_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: it discloses the output format (markdown table), the nature of the data (raw numbers rather than verdicts), and hints at the intended use. It does not mention potential limitations like indicator coverage or rate limits, but for a simple read-only getter this is adequate. Some additional context could be provided, hence not a 5.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and format. The remaining sentences provide essential usage guidance and alternative direction without unnecessary fluff or repetition. Every 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?

The tool has an output schema, full schema coverage for all three parameters, and a description that covers purpose, output format, and usage vs alternatives. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively. It lacks only minor details like explicit mention of error handling or indicator list, but these are not critical given the output schema and simplicity of the tool.

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%, with all three parameters (symbol, count, interval) already described with defaults and allowed values. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is fine given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the latest calculated technical indicator values in markdown table format.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_market_analysis, which provides interpreted BUY/SELL verdicts. The purpose is unambiguous and directly scoped to raw indicator data.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use when you want the raw indicator numbers to reason over yourself') and when to use an alternative ('If you want the numbers already interpreted into a BUY/SELL verdict, call get_market_analysis instead'). It names the specific sibling tool, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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