get_ta_narrative

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact outputs (RSI, MACD, etc.) and the market focus (Vietnamese stocks), which go beyond 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?

The description is concise with two short English sentences and one Vietnamese sentence. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose, though the bilingual repetition could be considered slightly redundant.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the return data (RSI, MACD, etc.). It covers the tool's function and market focus, but lacks mention of overlapping with sibling tools like get_technical_signals.

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?

The single parameter symbol has 100% schema coverage with a description including examples. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool retrieves technical analysis signals and AI-generated narrative for Vietnamese stocks, listing specific indicators (RSI, MACD, moving averages, buy/sell votes, commentary). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_technical_signals and get_news_sentiment.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies it's for narrative-rich analysis, no direct comparisons or exclusions are given for siblings like get_technical_signals.

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