chainvectorIndicators

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses deterministic results ('Same numbers every agent run'), server-side computation, and the tick-derived bar source. It lacks details on return structure or limits, but these are partially covered by the schema.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose and include a key benefit (deterministic, server-side). No wasted words; every clause 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 description covers what indicators, intervals, and computation model are used, which is sufficient for a read-only analytics tool. It doesn't describe return shape, but the schema's parameter descriptions and the tool's simple nature make this adequate.

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 schema documents all 5 parameters. The description adds value by mapping the indicator list to the 'indicators' parameter and reiterating the interval range, but provides no additional semantics 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 computes technical indicators (RSI, EMA/MA ladder, MACD, ATR, Bollinger bands) on server-side tick-derived bars with interval support. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools.

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?

It provides clear context: this is the server-side, deterministic indicator source, contrasting with local candle math. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the 'no local candle math' phrase implies when to prefer it over manual computation or raw kline tools.

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