trademcp_get_technical_analysis

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it names the exact composite scale (Strong Buy through Strong Sell) and the specific risk metrics computed (volatility, Sharpe, Sortino, max drawdown, beta, alpha, 30-day relative strength). It does not disclose data source, latency, or whether results are cached, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded: the first sentence says what the tool produces, then the Returns/Args blocks. Every sentence carries information, though the Args section is mildly redundant with an already fully-documented schema.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return keys ('summary', 'signals', 'indicators', 'statistics', 'candles'), and it covers all four inputs with defaults. For a read-only analysis tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the shape of the result.

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 coverage is 100% and all four parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The Args block largely restates the schema ('symbol: NSE symbol or company name', 'response_format: markdown or json') without adding format, constraints, or behavior — for example, what happens if the symbol is ambiguous or unknown.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a full technical analysis') and enumerates the concrete outputs: indicator scores, composite rating, risk statistics, candlestick patterns. It is clearly a composite-analysis tool, distinguishing it in substance from trademcp_get_technical_indicators, but it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

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 by the output inventory — an agent can infer this is the 'give me the whole technical picture' call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing statement pointing to get_technical_indicators, get_support_resistance, or get_price_history.

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