finnhub_technical_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions JSON export support but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or consequences of parameter choices. Each operation's behavior is not explained.

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 relatively concise (two sentences plus a list), but the list of operations is not structured in a readable way (comma-separated). It could be more organized with bullet points or clearer formatting.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the four different operations, how they differ, or how parameters relate to each operation. An AI agent would have difficulty invoking this tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no additional meaning for any of the 12 parameters. It does not explain the required 'operation' parameter or optional parameters like 'days', 'stdDev', or 'timePeriod'. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which has many undocumented fields.

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 it provides technical analysis tools including indicators, pattern recognition, and support/resistance levels, and lists the four operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other data types like stock fundamentals or crypto. However, it lacks a single clear verb describing the tool's action.

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 this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tool names provide some context, but the description does not mention when to prefer technical_analysis over other finnhub tools.

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