get_ta_summary

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context by specifying the return content (labels, scores, oscillator/MA basis) and the multi-symbol/multi-timeframe scope. It does not contradict the 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant or promotional language. Every clause adds information about scope, return format, or the basis of the scores.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete for a summary API. It omits explicit guidance on when to choose this over rank_by_ta or screen_stocks, but that is more of a usage-guideline gap than a completeness gap.

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 documents all three parameters with defaults, valid values, and maximum symbol count, so the description adds minimal parameter-level detail. Mention of oscillators and moving averages links loosely to include_components but does not exceed the schema's coverage.

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 returns TradingView-style buy/sell/neutral labels and recommendation scores for one or more symbols across multiple timeframes. It is specific about the resource and output, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like rank_by_ta.

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?

Usage context is implied: use when you need a technical analysis summary for specified symbols. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, exclusions, or guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like rank_by_ta or screen_stocks.

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