get_indicator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is a single 'latest value' computed over 'recent candles', but 'recent' is undefined (how many candles?), and there is no mention of error behavior with insufficient data or required auth.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action and result front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though extremely sparse given the tool's parameter surface.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It partially compensates by stating the return shape ('latest value'), but leaves period, symbol, timeframe, and data-window behavior unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it only names the indicator options already enumerated in the schema. It says nothing about the period, symbol, or timeframe parameters or their defaults, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Compute') and the concrete resources (SMA, EMA, RSI, ATR) plus the returned result. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_candles or calculate_lot_size, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_candles, get_tick, or get_symbol_info, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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