get_full_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only aggregation, how expensive/slow a multi-signal computation is, whether results are cached, or how errors on partial data are handled. Only the obvious 'get implies read' is conveyed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for an aggregate analysis tool.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool that bundles many analyses, the description omits what the response actually contains (structure, per-indicator breakdown) and any behavioral caveats. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about return shape and cost.

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 100%, with symbol, timeframe, and risk_level all documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., effect of risk_level on signals), so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (get) and resource (comprehensive technical analysis) plus enumerates the scope: all indicators, patterns, and signals. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names the sibling tools it aggregates (get_technical_indicators, detect_chart_patterns, get_trading_signals), so an agent must infer the aggregate-vs-single distinction itself.

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?

"Comprehensive ... including all indicators, patterns, and signals" implies the tool is the one-stop alternative to the granular siblings, but the description never states when to use this versus them, nor any cost/latency tradeoff for the broader call. Usage is left implied rather than stated.

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