market_technical_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing data provenance and warning that values are not locally simulated. It stops short of covering freshness/staleness, caching, or response shape, but for a read-only data fetch this is solid added value.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the caveat succinctly following. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

It names the fields returned (recommendation score, RSI, MACD), which partly substitutes for the missing output schema, but with three parameters at near-zero schema coverage the agent still lacks guidance on what `market` changes and how per-symbol/per-timeframe results are shaped. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-param, multi-dimensional fetch.

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 effectively 0% overall — only `symbols` carries a short note, while `market` (6-value enum, default "global") and `timeframes` (10-value enum, default 1D) are undocumented, as are the maxItems limits of 100 and 10. The description names symbols and timeframes but adds no format, default, or cardinality guidance to compensate for that gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (TradingView scanner recommendation scores, RSI and MACD fields) with the scoping dimensions (symbols/timeframes). It does not name the near-neighbors it competes with, such as market_signal_snapshot or screener_scan, so the agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provenance clause ("service-provided values, not locally simulated signals or backtest results") implies this is the right tool when you want externally computed indicator/sentiment readings rather than strategy backtest output. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition is given relative to market_signal_snapshot or screener_scan.

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