Market Ta

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: pure local math with no external TA library, a 55-candle minimum, and an error return for thin markets. It also explains conventions such as hist > 0 = bullish momentum and bollinger_pctB boundaries, which help the agent interpret results.

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 long but well structured: a one-sentence summary, an organized key-fields list, then operational notes and an example. Some indicator formulas overlap with what an output schema would provide, but each section serves a distinct purpose.

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 technical indicator tool with an output schema, it supplies the prerequisites, failure behavior, key output fields, and a usage example. The only notable gap is the lack of enumeration or definition of valid resolution values, though the example and schema default cover most invocation needs.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a concrete example (ticker="BTC-USD", resolution="1HOUR") and contextual meaning via dYdX candles, but it does not define valid resolution values or fully explain the ticker market identifier 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 names a specific resource (dYdX candles) and a concrete output (technical snapshot) while enumerating indicators such as RSI(14), EMA20/EMA50, ATR(14), Bollinger(20,2), MACD(12,26,9), VWAP(20), and annualized realized vol. It is clear enough to distinguish from raw-candle siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 rather than stated: an agent needing technical indicator values rather than raw candles would pick this tool. It adds a data prerequisite (>=55 candles) and a thin-market error case, but it never says when to prefer candles/market_digest or when not to use this tool.

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