get_technical_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior like number of data points, time period, calculation parameters, error handling, or whether the symbol must be valid. Merely listing indicators is insufficient for a complete behavioral understanding.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists included indicators. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at return format or data structure, which it does not. It also lacks details on typical parameters like period or interval, leaving agents underinformed for correct 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It specifies 'for a stock,' clarifying that 'symbol' is a stock ticker. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's empty title, but does not provide format or examples.

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 technical indicators') and lists specific indicators (SMA, EMA, RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands) for a specific resource ('stock'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stock_quote or get_stock_history.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. The list of indicators implies use cases for technical analysis, but no exclusions or context for selection among many siblings.

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