Calculate indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as 'calculate' but does not disclose potential side effects, data requirements (e.g., minimum number of bars per indicator), or that the operation is read-only with no destructive behavior. The lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 12-word sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (multiple indicator types, parameter dependencies), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about output format, required bar count per indicator, and any performance considerations. No output schema exists to compensate.

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%, meaning parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, such as required order of bars, frequency, or format constraints. It only lists indicator types, which is already implied by the schema structure.

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 the tool calculates SMA, EMA, RSI, MACD, and Bollinger Bands from OHLCV bars. It uses a specific verb 'calculate' and lists the exact indicators, distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch raw data or generate charts.

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 implies usage for computing technical indicators but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ohlcv for raw data or render_chart_html for visualization. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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