get_technical_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool performs analysis and returns a signal, but lacks details on how the analysis is conducted (e.g., timeframes, data sources), whether it's read-only or has side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics like rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves complex calculations.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the action and indicators, the second specifies the output. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more efficient by combining ideas, but it's already very tight.

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 the tool's complexity (technical analysis with multiple indicators) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the signal output, but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema helps mitigate some gaps.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('symbol') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose (e.g., that 'symbol' likely refers to a financial instrument). It doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples, leaving the parameter minimally documented.

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 the tool's purpose: performing a technical analysis summary using specific indicators (RSI, MACD, Moving Averages) and returning a trading signal. It specifies the verb ('Performs'), resource ('technical analysis summary'), and outcome ('Buy', 'Sell', or 'Neutral' signal). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compute_indicators' or 'run_backtest', which might also involve technical analysis.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over sibling tools like 'compute_indicators' (which might compute raw indicators) or 'get_symbol_sentiment' (which might provide sentiment-based signals). There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing historical data or specific market conditions.

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