get_technical_strategies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action (run strategies, produce consensus) without detailing output format, execution caveats, or data dependencies. It does not explain what a consensus signal looks like or whether any side effects occur (though 'get' suggests read-only, this is not 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It packs the core action and the specific strategy list into a compact form, earning its place entirely.

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?

While the description lists the strategies and clarifies the target (Korean pharma stock), it omits crucial context: what the consensus signal means, the output format, and how to interpret results. With no output schema and no annotations, the lack of behavioral details makes the tool difficult to use correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'symbol' (KRX ticker) and 'range' (3mo/6mo/1y, default 6mo). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 5 named technical analysis strategies and produces a consensus signal for a Korean pharma stock, making its specific function unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_stock_technicals (which likely provides generic technicals) and evaluate_trading_signal (which evaluates a single signal) by focusing on multi-strategy consensus.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not-to-use or reference sibling tools, leaving the user to infer applicability solely from the strategy names and the Korean pharma stock qualifier.

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