data_get_indicator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it declares 'SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only)' and a precondition ('Requires valid entity ID'). It omits what happens on an invalid or stale ID and does not characterize the returned payload, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three short labeled segments, front-loaded with the core purpose before WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, trigger, side-effect profile, and precondition. It only lightly sketches the return content ('parameters, input values, configuration') and says nothing about the response shape or nesting, a minor gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents entity_id as the study entity ID from chart_get_state. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Get') and resource ('internal study parameters, input values, and configuration of a specific indicator entity by ID'), which is far beyond a tautology of the name. It implicitly separates configuration inspection from sibling tools like data_get_study_values (computed values) and indicator_set_inputs (mutation), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'WHEN TO USE' block gives a concrete trigger: inspecting active parameters such as RSI length or MA source for an indicator obtained from chart_get_state. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent to alternatives (e.g., indicator_set_inputs for changing values), so it stops short of a 5.

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