get_indicator_values

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

The description states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It lacks information on error handling, required permissions, or what happens when the strategy is invalid.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action ('Return the live values'), and every word adds value. No fluff.

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 is simple with only two parameters, but no output schema is provided. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., a dict of indicator names to values). Given sibling tools like 'compute_indicator' exist, the description could have clarified that this retrieves existing values rather than computing new ones, but it does implicitly via 'live values'. Overall adequate for a simple retrieval 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 coverage is 50% (only 'name' has a description). The description adds minimal context for 'strategy' by implying it's the container for indicators, but does not clarify valid inputs or format. The 'name' filter is already described in the schema. The description does not compensate enough for the schema's lack of description on 'strategy'.

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 it returns live values of indicators inside a strategy, with optional name filtering. It provides concrete usage examples ('what's the EMA reading') that clarify the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compute_indicator' or 'list_indicators'.

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 explicit use cases for when to use this tool ('what's the EMA reading', 'is the RSI overbought now'), which helps the agent understand context. It does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the provided scenarios are clear.

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