get_support_resistance

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions 'based on pivot points' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it requires authentication, or any potential side effects. The description is insufficient for an AI agent to assess impact.

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 with two sentences: purpose and example. It front-loads the action. However, it sacrifices essential details for brevity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for practical use. It does not describe the format of support/resistance levels, return type, or edge cases like invalid symbols.

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%. The description neither explains the 'symbol' parameter (e.g., stock ticker format) nor the 'period' parameter (e.g., valid ranges). The example only shows symbol usage, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 it gets support and resistance levels based on pivot points for a stock. It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_history or get_technical_indicators by specifying the specific calculation method.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_technical_indicators, get_52week_high). Only an example is provided, but no when/when-not or context.

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