get_quote_price_with_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions the tool is a get operation (implying read-only), but does not disclose safety profile, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 relatively short and to the point, with clear bullet points for indicators. The first sentence is slightly awkward but not overly verbose. It effectively communicates the key feature without extraneous content.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the indicator parameter in detail, neglecting other important parameters like start_date, end_date, interval, drop_market_close, and output_format. There is no mention of return values or typical use cases, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for a complex tool.

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 86%, high. The description adds examples for indicator parameters (e.g., 'rsi(window=21)') which are already in the schema description, providing only marginal additional value. It does not elaborate on other parameters like start_date, end_date, interval, output_format, or drop_market_close.

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 that the tool retrieves quote price with indicators for a stock market symbol, and provides explicit examples of indicator formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote_history_price or get_quote_intraday_price which do not include indicators.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool name and description.

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