Compute a technical indicator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious behavioral trait: values are aligned with candles and null before enough history, preventing silent series shifts. However, it does not mention other behaviors like read-only nature, output structure, or error handling, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds a critical behavioral detail. There is no filler, repetition of schema information, or unnecessary context.

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 moderately complex with six parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not specify the return shape (e.g., one array per series for Bollinger) or default periods. While the alignment/null behavior adds useful return context, the lack of explicit output structure and usage guidance leaves noteworthy gaps.

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 83%, so the schema documents most parameter semantics (e.g., range for bars, period, enum for timeframe). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('Computes') and a resource ('technical indicator') while explicitly enumerating the exact indicators supported: SMA, EMA, RSI, ATR, and Bollinger bands. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_symbols or backtest, which perform unrelated operations.

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 states what the tool computes but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_ohlc or backtest. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage context entirely.

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