Market data: technical analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the dual-source design (TradingView computes, Finviz independently cross-checks) plus the response envelope shape. It does not disclose what happens when Finviz is unavailable or the ticker is missing from the given exchange, nor latency, rate limits, or whether the two sources can disagree silently. Useful context, but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 lead sentence states the tool's identity, then Args and Returns sections structure the rest cleanly. Every line carries information and the parameter list is front-loadable. Minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the TradingView/Finviz paragraph prevents a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still orients the agent to data.analysis and data.cross_check, which is genuinely helpful. All three parameters are covered, but the absence of annotations means degradation behavior and the meaning of a failed cross-check are left unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema has no enums, so the description does real work: it defines symbol as a ticker, exchange as the TradingView prefix with concrete examples (NASDAQ, NYSE, BIST), and timeframe with the exact allowed values (5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1D, 1W, 1M). Only the defaults and any validation rules are left implicit, keeping it just under a 5.

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 names a specific capability: a TradingView-computed indicator stack (RSI, MACD, EMAs, Bollinger, ATR, ADX, structure, trade setup) for a symbol, cross-checked against a Finviz snapshot of price, RSI(14), ATR(14) and 52-week range. That is far more concrete than the tool name alone and implicitly separates it from price-oriented siblings like stock_chart or stock_quote. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it replaces, so it is not a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus stock_chart, combined_analysis, stock_screener or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit: the returned fields suggest it is for indicator readings. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the data-source description.

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