get_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON of calculated results instead of raw OHLCV, that prices are rounded to KRX tick units, and warns about using phase_label directly to avoid tokenizer errors. It covers non-obvious behaviors well, though it could be more explicit about being read-only.

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 lengthy but well-structured with sections, bullet points, and examples. It is front-loaded with a summary and usage warning. While every part is informative, some detail could be condensed without losing clarity.

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 (5 parameters, many indicators, return values with special fields), the description is highly complete. It covers parameter specifics, default values, return value explanations, and edge cases (e.g., support_resistance requires 2-3 years of data). Output schema exists but not shown; the description still provides sufficient detail.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all five parameters, including defaults, allowed values, examples, and format for the complex 'params' parameter. It also explains the meaning of return fields like ma_phase. This greatly exceeds the baseline.

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 explicitly states that the tool computes technical indicators for a single stock, listing specific indicators (moving averages, RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, Stochastic). It distinguishes itself from get_chart, which is for visualization only. The purpose is clear and 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?

The description clearly states that this tool is for screening and decision-making, not for chart visualization. It advises to use get_chart for plotting and to call this tool only when numerical comparison is needed. However, it does not mention alternatives like get_indicators_bulk for multiple stocks, which could be considered a minor omission.

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