fmp_technical_indicator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits: no mention that it only returns indicator series, no indication of data freshness, no mention of limitations (e.g., only supports specific indicators, or that it may require premium API access), no note on how errors or empty results are handled. Even the presence of an output schema is not leveraged. This is nearly absent.

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 one short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and conveys minimal content. It is not rambling, but it does not earn its place because it lacks substance. Given that conciseness should reward efficiency without sacrificing information, this is average at best.

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?

With 6 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides no context on how the indicator list maps to output, how to select the right indicator for a task, or what data range to expect. It is not devoid, but it is far from complete for a complex tool requiring parameter selection.

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, but it does not. It only says 'technical indicator series', giving no clue about how to choose the indicator, set timeframes, or interpret period_length. The enum parameters are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics for any of the 6 parameters. Baseline 3 is not met because no compensation exists.

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 'A technical indicator series — useful for backtesting signal ideas.' uses vague nouns ('series') and lacks a clear verb ('get', 'retrieve', 'calculate'). It does not distinguish from siblings like fmp_quote or fmp_historical_prices, and the phrase 'useful for backtesting' is a purpose, not a function.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description vaguely implies backtesting utility, but does not state when to prefer it over fmp_historical_prices or fmp_quote, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites. With 0% schema description coverage, this gap is significant.

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