get_indicators

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries a heavier burden, and it does reveal relevant behavioral context: it returns only 'últimos valores' (latest values), it is 'DERIVADO de klines vivas', and it uses standard formulas with specific periods. It does not document live-updating behavior or the exact number of candle samples each indicator consumes, but the information given is accurate and useful.

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 short and front-loaded, with the indicator list immediately and the derivation note appended. Each part earns its place, and there is no redundant filler. The only minor issue is that it is written in Spanish in an otherwise English-oriented tool set, which may add a tiny amount of friction.

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?

For a read-only indicator tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to understand the main result domain and the data source. However, it falls short on parametrized documentation: an agent cannot infer the required format of 'symbol', acceptable 'interval' values, or how 'limit' changes the calculation or response under the current explanation.

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 is the only textual place to explain the parameters. It does not mention 'symbol', 'interval', or 'limit' at all, nor enumerate possible interval values or the meaning of the limit. The names in the schema are somewhat self-explanatory, but with a 0% coverage gap this still leaves significant room for the agent to guess incorrectly.

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 identifies what the tool returns: classic indicators over live candles, listing RSI(14), MACD(12,26,9), ATR(14), Bollinger(20,2), and SMA/EMA 20/50/200. It distinguishes the tool from raw klines and from the single-indicator get_emas sibling by indicating it is a multi-indicator panel, though it phrases this as a noun phrase ('Panel de indicadores') rather than an explicit verb.

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 explains that this tool is derived from live klines with standard formulas, which implies it is the right choice when you want computed indicators rather than raw klines. However, it does not explicitly describe when to use this instead of get_emas or get_klines, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions or alternative selection criteria.

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