get_support_resistance_levels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any traits like rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or prerequisites. The minimal description only states the basic operation.

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 extremely concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, and no extraneous content exists.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It does not explain return values, potential errors, or edge cases. For a straightforward data retrieval tool, this is acceptable but could be more thorough.

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. It adds brief explanations for both parameters (ticker as symbol, period with default and example), but does not elaborate on valid values or format constraints. This is adequate for a simple tool but could be more informative.

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 support and resistance levels for a specific ticker and period. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'support and resistance levels' are precise, and no sibling tool offers this functionality, providing strong differentiation.

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 implies usage context (e.g., when needing support/resistance data for a security) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks comparative context with sibling tools.

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