data_get_indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if entity_id is invalid), return format, permissions, or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core operation without extraneous content. This is well-structured for a simple getter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what 'info' includes, how this relates to chart state, or how it differs from similar tools like data_get_study_values. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks enough context to invoke this tool confidently in all scenarios.

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 100% since the single parameter entity_id has a description ('Study entity ID (from chart_get_state)'). The tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameter, but because the schema already provides sufficient meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional value is added by the description for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'indicator/study info and input values'. This distinguishes it from tools like data_get_study_values (which likely returns computed values) but does not explicitly mention that distinction. It is clear and non-tautological, though it could be more explicit in naming the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as data_get_study_values or chart_get_state. The description simply states what it does without context for selection. The only contextual clue comes from the parameter description in the schema, but the tool description itself fails to offer usage direction.

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