get_technical_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It outlines the type of analysis provided (trend, momentum, volatility, support/resistance, buy/sell signal) but does not mention caching behavior (though the use_cache parameter hints at it), rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 extremely concise: only two sentences that convey the core functionality. Every sentence is informative, with no redundant or extraneous information. It is optimally sized for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides a solid overview of what is returned (trend, momentum, volatility, support/resistance, buy/sell signal). The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. However, the description could mention the available output modes (full/summary) and timeframe options to enhance completeness. Overall, it is well-rounded but leaves a few details to the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already in the schema. It mentions 'multiple technical indicators' but does not elaborate on parameters like format, last_n, output, or indicators. Thus, it provides minimal additional value for parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Get composite technical analysis for a single stock or ETF.' It specifies the resource (single stock/ETF) and the action (get composite technical analysis). The sibling tools include generic fetch and market context tools, making this tool distinct as a focused technical analysis provider.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., fmp_fetch, get_market_context). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions that would make this tool more appropriate than others. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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