get_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns judgment results (not raw OHLCV) to save tokens, mentions that params should only be used upon explicit user request, and notes that minute timeframe is not supported. While good, it could mention if the tool is read-only or any rate limits, but overall sufficient.

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 well-structured with a brief overview followed by parameter details in a bullet-like format. It is concise given the amount of information, though the Korean section could be slightly more streamlined. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 complexity (5 parameters, multiple indicator options) and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context: parameter usage, allowed values, and a note about label fields. It covers essential usage details, though a brief note on output structure could enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters, including defaults, allowed values (e.g., timeframe options, include keys), and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it provides technical indicators (e.g., moving averages, RSI, MACD) as JSON, with a specific verb 'get' and resource 'indicators'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_chart by noting it is not for chart visualization, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (numeric comparison for screening, filtering, state judgment) and when not to use (visualization, which should use get_chart). It also advises only calling when numeric comparison is needed, providing clear usage context.

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