tech_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses caching (5 min) and available timeframes, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. The 'Cached 5 min' adds value beyond the schema, but more context is needed.

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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences with no filler. Key information (indicators, AI signal, timeframes, caching) is front-loaded. Every word contributes value.

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 has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, given the low parameter documentation (0% schema coverage) and moderate complexity (2 params, no nested objects), the description should provide more context on symbol and timeframe semantics. The timeframes are listed but not formally associated with the parameter. Overall adequate but incomplete.

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. It mentions timeframes in the free text (15m, 1h, 4h, 1d) but does not explicitly link to the 'timeframe' parameter. The 'symbol' parameter lacks any description of acceptable formats or asset types (e.g., tickers, crypto pairs). This leaves the agent guessing on parameter usage.

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 provides '18 technical indicators + AI signal for any ticker', specifying the resource (ticker) and verb (provides analysis). It lists available timeframes, making the purpose specific and actionable. While sibling tools exist, this tool's focus on technical indicators with AI signal distinguishes it adequately.

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 technical analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like equity_analysis or multi_timeframe_scan. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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