finnhub_technical_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose how operations map to parameters, whether there are side effects, error behavior, or rate limits. The operation names give hints, but the description adds little beyond restating those names.

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 a compact, front-loaded list with a clear domain line and four bullet points. It is concise and well-structured, but the per-operation lines are terse and essentially restate the operation names, limiting informational value.

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 an 8-parameter dispatcher with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lists operations but omits parameter-to-operation mappings, additional prerequisites, and interaction with the output schema. An agent would struggle to select the right operation and parameters without external knowledge.

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 explain the parameters. It only describes the 'operation' values, leaving symbol, resolution, indicator, timeperiod, and timestamps unexplained. There is no guidance on which parameters apply to each operation, making it difficult to invoke correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's domain ('Technical indicators, patterns, and signals') and enumerates four distinct operations with one-line explanations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like news sentiment or fundamentals. However, it is an umbrella tool rather than a single action, so it stops short of a 5.

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 operations list gives implied context for when to use this tool (e.g., for support/resistance or chart pattern scanning), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings or what exclusions apply. The usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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