get_indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, execution details, or potential errors. It is minimally adequate for a non-destructive tool.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get' and includes the key resource and supported indicator types. Every word contributes to the core message without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema. The description is far too terse to cover these gaps: it omits how 'period' and 'timeframe' affect the result, and gives no indication of return structure. This is a clear gap for a tool with 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It merely lists indicator enum values (already present in the schema) and says nothing about 'period' or 'timeframe'. This adds no semantic value beyond the 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 that the tool retrieves a specific technical indicator value and lists the supported indicators, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ticker or get_ohlcv. However, it does not explicitly contrast with analyze_symbol_ta, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 does not mention when it is appropriate to call get_indicator instead of get_ohlcv or analyze_symbol_ta, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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