get_technicals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing exactly which indicators are computed, giving insight into the tool's behavior and output. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only computation tool, the listed indicators provide strong behavioral transparency beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the purpose ('Compute a full technical-analysis snapshot'). The first sentence is a dense list of indicators, but each item is meaningful and directly describes outputs. The second sentence gives actionable context (feed into scan formula). No filler or redundant information.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all outputs (indicators, ranges, levels). It also mentions 'daily price history' and the interval default via the schema. It does not describe potential errors or edge cases, but for a 2-parameter read-only tool with a comprehensive output list, this is nearly complete. Slight deduction for lacking explicit mention of what happens with insufficient data.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (symbol and interval), including descriptions and an enum for interval. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, such as format, constraints, or examples. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and clearly identifies the resource ('technical-analysis snapshot for a symbol'), then enumerates a comprehensive list of indicators (RSI, SMA/EMA, MACD, Bollinger Bands, ATR, volatility, 52-week range, swing-pivot levels, volume-vs-average). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chart or get_asset_price, which serve different data purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Feed this into the scan scoring formula in CLAUDE.md.' This implies a specific use case (technical analysis for stock scanning) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since it names a downstream integration, it offers more than mere implication, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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