okx_technical_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavior. It mentions the output format ('Returns formatted report with bull/bear signal counts') but doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, requires any permissions, or has any side effects. It adds some context about the report but not enough for a full behavioral profile.

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 a single sentence, efficient, and includes the key indicators and output. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the return format (formatted report with signal counts). However, it doesn't describe the exact structure or whether raw indicator values are included. Given the tool's complexity (multiple indicators, optional parameters), slightly more detail would improve completeness, but the current description is adequate.

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 only 33% (bar has a description, instType and instrument do not). The description does not explain how the parameters affect the analysis, such as how 'bar' controls the timeframe or what 'instrument' selects. With low coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 runs full technical analysis with specific indicators (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, MAs) and reports bull/bear signals. This distinguishes it from sibling data tools like okx_get_candles.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for comprehensive analysis but doesn't mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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