technical_indicators

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'computed locally, no API cost' but lacks explicit read-only declaration, side effects, or other behavioral traits. Does not state that it is safe and non-destructive.

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?

Description is structured with an Args section and examples, making it easy to parse. Though slightly verbose with examples, each part adds value. Could be more concise, but structure is effective.

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?

Covers tool purpose, parameters, and markets. With an output schema present, lack of output description is acceptable. However, for a complex tool with many indicators, it could mention performance or data source details. Adequate but not 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%, but description explains each parameter clearly with defaults, options, and examples. Period values listed, indicators options enumerated, and examples illustrate usage, compensating well for schema gaps.

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?

Clearly states it computes technical indicators for stocks with buy/sell signals, listing specific indicators and markets. The verb 'Compute' and resource 'technical indicators' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'nse_historical' or 'options_greeks'.

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 examples and parameter details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'stock_quote' or 'nse_historical'). No when-not-to-use or competing tool mentions.

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