get_technical_signals

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds the list of signal types (RSI, MACD, etc.), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose whether signals are for the latest data or historical, or if any rate limits or data freshness considerations apply. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 very short (two sentences) and gets to the point immediately. The first sentence lists the key signals. The second sentence repeats in Vietnamese, which is redundant for English-speaking agents but not harmful. The structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should ideally explain what the returned data looks like. It lists the signals but does not describe format (e.g., object with fields) or if it returns a single object or array. The parameter 'days' suggests a time range, but no mention of whether it returns one signal per day or aggregated. Contextually, it is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (symbol and days) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no hint about ticker format or default days). Since schema coverage is high, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not enhance understanding.

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 it returns technical analysis signals including RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, buy/sell votes, and confidence score. It specifies the resource (technical signals) and verb (get), making its purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as get_price_history or get_financials, which are conceptually distinct but not contrasted 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other technical or fundamental analysis tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, recommended context (e.g., 'use when you need overbought/oversold indicators'), or mention that it is for historical signals rather than real-time. This lack of usage direction forces the agent to rely solely on tool naming.

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