technical_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is PRO-gated and that signals are included, but it does not explain what form the output takes, whether signals are buy/sell/neutral, what indicator periods are used, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

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 very brief and has no wasted words, but it is a bare noun phrase rather than a structured definition with an action and key context. It is concise to the point of under-specification, without the front-loaded clarity that would make it easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough. An agent knows the general subject but cannot confidently predict the response structure, signal semantics, or when this tool should be chosen over get_chart or market_screener. The low parameter count reduces complexity, but the missing output and usage context still leaves a clear gap.

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 schema contains one parameter, symbol, with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about it. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage by explaining expected symbol format, source, 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 identifies the resource as technical analysis and lists the specific indicators (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, SMA) and mentions that signals are included. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from quote/search/chart siblings by its technical-indicator subject matter, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'calculates' or 'returns'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_quote, get_chart, or market_screener. It does not state alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool correctly. Usage is only implied by the tool name and indicator list.

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