get_technical_indicators

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation returning indicators, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or any side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences and an example. No fluff, with the purpose stated upfront and key details immediately following. Every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters, the description covers the what (indicators) and periods but not the output structure (e.g., how values are returned, timeframe). It is functional but not fully comprehensive for a tool computing indicators.

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. It lists valid periods for the 'period' parameter and provides an example for 'symbol' (RELIANCE). However, it does not specify the symbol format (e.g., NSE ticker without suffix) nor the default period (given in schema as '6mo').

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 retrieves key technical indicators for NSE stocks, listing specific indicators (SMA, EMA, RSI, etc.) and valid periods. This differentiates it from siblings like detect_candlestick_patterns and get_support_resistance, which focus on patterns or levels.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it implicitly covers technical indicators, it does not state exclusions or provide context for choosing between this and other technical analysis tools (e.g., get_support_resistance).

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