Get Technical Indicators

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Calculate' makes the read-only, computational nature evident)Skip and listing the indicators discloses what the output contains. However, it does not say whether it fetches historical data internally, whether all listed indicators are always returned, or whether there are precision or limit behaviors.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and a parenthetical list of indicators. There is no filler, duplicate information, or boilerplate.

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 combination of description and schema is sufficient for basic invocation, but the description lacks usage context compared to the rich sibling setholiday. With no annotationscars, behavioral details such as data source or output aggregation are also implicit. The presence of an output schema softens the missing return-shape explanation.

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?

The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the nested schema already documents symbol, interval, and hours_back with defaults and example values. Although the context signal reports 0% coverage at the top-level 'params' property, the agent sees the nested descriptions, so the description need not repeat them.

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 states a clear action ('Calculate') and resource ('technical indicators'), and lists concrete indicator names (RSI, MACD, ATR, Bollinger Bands). It is distinguishable from the sibling strategy and analysis tools, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling as an alternative.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_historical_data, get_vol_surface_metrics, or the options strategy tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals such as 'use for chart-based analysis' that would help an agent choose among the many siblings.

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