get_technical_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 implies a read-only computation but never states that nothing is mutated, that it requires historical candle data, whether timeframes must be pre-supported, or what the response contains — significant gaps for a bare tool.

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 efficient sentence with the actionable content (which indicators) up front and no filler. It is sparse rather than padded, though it could carry one more clause about usage or output without bloat.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the shape of the returned indicator series and any constraints on timeframe/symbol coverage; it explains neither. For a 3-parameter analytical tool in a crowded sibling set, this leaves the agent guessing.

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 100%, so the required symbol, timeframe options, and optional indicator array are already fully documented in the schema. The description's indicator list adds marginal mapping to the 'indicators' parameter but no syntax, accepted values, or defaults beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Calculate technical indicators') and enumerates the actual indicator families computed, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_trading_signals, detect_chart_patterns, or multi_timeframe_analysis, which overlap heavily in this namespace.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus get_trading_signals, get_support_resistance, or multi_timeframe_analysis, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether OHLCV data must exist for the symbol/timeframe). Usage is inferable only from the name and indicator list.

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