get_stock_technicals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the indicators and asset type, but does not describe output format, pagination, limitations, or the meaning of the 'range' parameter. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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, waste-free sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It earns its place, though it could include more context without becoming unnecessarily verbose.

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 has two parameters (one required, one optional) and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the range parameter, the expected return structure, or any edge cases, making it incomplete for reliable autonomous invocation.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It implicitly references 'symbol' but completely ignores the optional 'range' parameter. This leaves the agent without adequate information to set parameters correctly.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('technical indicators'), specific indicators (RSI, Bollinger Bands, Volume Ratio), and the target asset type (Korean pharma stock). This is sufficiently specific to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_technical_strategies.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where technical indicators would be preferred over get_technical_strategies or evaluate_trading_signal, and no exclusion criteria.

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