get_technicals

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a behavioral disclaimer that none of the results are investment advice and clarifies that it produces a computed summary rather than raw data, offering context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a necessary indicator list and a short usage/disclaimer sentence. Every part earns its place, though the list is long; it remains informative and efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the computed indicators and adding a usage note. It does not describe the output structure or pagination, but for a 2-parameter, read-only tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, with both symbol and interval already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, such as how interval affects calculations or default values, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a full technical analysis summary from price history, enumerating specific indicators (RSI, SMA/EMA, MACD, Bollinger, ATR, volatility, etc.). This makes it straightforwardly distinct from siblings like get_chart or get_asset_price.

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?

Usage is implied by the detailed description and the instruction to use outputs as analysis input, but it never names alternatives or gives explicit when-not-to-use conditions compared to sibling tools. No exclusions or tool comparisons are provided.

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