get_trading_signals

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 how signals are derived, whether they are per-timeframe, whether confidence or indicator breakdowns accompany them, or whether they should be treated as advice. "Based on technical analysis" is the only behavioral hint provided.

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 no filler — efficient, though its economy borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the shape and trustworthiness of a signal (fields, per-timeframe behavior, caveats) but does not. For a compute-style analysis tool with three knobs, this leaves real gaps an agent cannot resolve elsewhere.

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% and each parameter already documents its accepted values and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about how timeframe or risk_level change the resulting signal, 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?

States a specific verb and output ("Generate buy/sell/hold signals") plus the basis ("technical analysis"), so the agent knows what it produces. However, it draws no line against close siblings such as get_technical_indicators, multi_timeframe_analysis, or get_full_analysis, which could easily overlap.

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 guidance on when to pick this over get_technical_indicators, multi_timeframe_analysis, or get_full_analysis, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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