get_technical_indicators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of internal data only, minimum trade count (500), and that it returns indicator values plus signal interpretations. It also covers the edge case of insufficient data returning a warning. Missing details on authentication needs or potential side effects, but given the context, these disclosures are adequate.

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 four sentences long, each with a clear purpose: core function, period list, usage tip, and output/warning. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and contains no 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?

The tool has three parameters, all documented. Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return format (latest indicator values and signal interpretations, or warning). The example question provides additional context. It might lack a detailed breakdown of each indicator's output, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the effect of limit on reliability and the purpose of periods for intraday vs. longer-term analysis. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 computes specific technical indicators (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, SMA 20, SMA 50) from Buda trade history, with explicit periods. It includes an example question, making its purpose unmistakable. No sibling tool computes indicators, so it is well-distinguished.

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 advises using shorter periods for intraday analysis and recommends a limit of 1000 for maximum depth. It also notes that insufficient candles yield a warning. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., get_price_history for raw data).

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