analyze_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output format (returns text) and the data-volume requirement (sufficient limit). However, it does not disclose error behavior with insufficient data, dependencies, or whether the operation is read-only, which is notable given the total absence of annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with the routing guidance separated out. The bracketed prefix '[Technical Indicators / RSI / MACD / SMA]' is slightly redundant with the body but serves as a quick tag scan. Information is organized purpose-first with no wasted words.

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 text-returning analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers purpose, output form, and alternative routing. Gaps remain: the pair/type parameters are unexplained and the concrete shape of 'signals' output is not described, but the core invocation requirements are present.

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 must compensate, but it only explains 'limit' (specify enough candles, e.g., 200 daily). The 'pair' and 'type' parameters are never semantically described, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from defaults and enums. One of three parameters covered at 0% schema coverage is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('テクニカル指標の総合分析' – comprehensive technical indicator analysis) and names the covered indicators (RSI, MACD, SMA). It clearly returns latest values, trend judgment, and signals as text. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the single-indicator snapshot siblings (analyze_sma_snapshot, analyze_ema_snapshot, etc.) by being comprehensive, though it never names them explicitly.

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 explicit alternative routing: drawing → prepare_chart_data / render_chart_svg and backtesting → run_backtest, and it advises specifying a sufficient limit. However, it does not clarify when to choose this comprehensive tool over the individual snapshot tools (analyze_sma_snapshot, analyze_bb_snapshot, detect_macd_cross), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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