indicator_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the side effect ('add a result to the chart'), the supported scope ('strategies and community scripts'), and the return value ('Returns the new study entity_id'). This is sufficient transparency for a straightforward additive operation, though it does not discuss any prerequisites like an open chart.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds scope and return-value information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, scope, and return value. It could arguably mention that a chart/workspace context must exist, but the schema and tool name make that reasonably inferable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, match, and section. The description adds contextual meaning around 'by name' and the search-to-add flow, but it does not need to repeat parameter details. A 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 uses a specific verb ('Search ... and add ... to the chart by name') and identifies the resource and result ('Returns the new study entity_id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like indicator_search by clarifying it actually adds a study, and broadens scope by covering strategies and community scripts.

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 when to use the tool: when adding an indicator or strategy to a chart by name. It notes that it works beyond built-ins, which helps with selection, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like indicator_search for look-ups or chart_manage_indicator for managing existing indicators, nor does it state when not to use it.

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