trademcp_get_support_resistance

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a computation over Indian stock data and lists the analytical outputs, but it does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. It has minor redundancy because the output components are enumerated in prose and then partially repeated in the Returns section, despite an output schema also being present.

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?

The description gives enough context to understand that this is a read-only technical computation for Indian NSE stocks and what analytical outputs to expect. It is complete for invocation, though it could better explain when to choose this tool over related technical-analysis siblings.

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 100%, so the schema already documents symbol, range, and response_format. The description repeats those parameters at a high level but adds no meaningful syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: "Compute support and resistance levels for an Indian stock." It clearly enumerates the computed outputs, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as trademcp_get_technical_indicators or trademcp_get_technical_analysis.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the stated purpose, and none of the sibling technical-analysis tools are referenced as alternatives.

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