Get an indicator

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: the exact composition of the response and the non-obvious gotcha that output line keys are often not the indicator id ('RSI's line is `value`'), which directly prevents a common downstream mistake. It also discloses that lookup is alias-tolerant (id, short name, or full name), which is behavior an agent must know to call it correctly.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the most important framing ('One built-in indicator in full') leads. The heavy parenthetical nesting makes it denser than ideal, but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so field by field (params, inputs, lines, levels, code). For a one-parameter read-only lookup with full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing apart from unknown-id error behavior.

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 single `id` parameter is already fully documented. The description's 'Takes the id, the short name or the full name' largely restates the schema's 'id, short name or name' with no added syntax, casing, or ambiguity-resolution detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource (retrieving one built-in indicator in full) and enumerates exactly what comes back: default params, inputs, lines, levels, and sample code. The phrase 'One built-in indicator in full' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_indicators, so an agent can tell retrieval from enumeration without opening a schema.

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 only implied: the mention that the returned params are 'what addIndicator takes' and that lines are 'the keys getIndicatorOutput returns' tells the agent this is a prerequisite lookup before adding or reading an indicator. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative such as list_indicators for discovery, so guidance is present but inferred.

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