indicators_technical

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, signaling safe, side-effect-free behavior. The description adds that it returns composite signals and trend classification but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and usage. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler. Efficient and clear.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by listing the computed indicators and signals. Parameters are fully covered. It lacks edge-case info (e.g., NaN handling, minimum price length beyond minItems=5) but is largely complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds 'Provide an array of prices and optional volumes' but this largely echoes the schema. It does not clarify the period's effect or data constraints beyond schema.

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 computes '13 technical indicators + composite signals' from price series and lists the specific indicators. It distinguishes itself from siblings like indicators_crossover and indicators_regime by offering a broad set of indicators in one call.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you need multiple technical indicators computed from a price series.' This provides clear context for when to use, but does not include exclusions or comparisons to siblings, which would elevate it further.

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