get_technical_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well: it explains that the tool fetches candle data internally, why it avoids get_candles, and that insufficient history produces null values. It does not detail the exact response shape, but for a compute-only indicator tool the disclosed behavior is meaningful and sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the capability, the second adds the key operational caveat, and the Args block gives parameter semantics in a scannable format. There is no filler, repetition, or wasted text.

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 3-parameter read/compute tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, internal data sourcing, and null behavior—enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only notable omission is the exact return structure, but the listed indicators and caveats provide adequate contextual coverage.

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 compensate, and it does: symbol is explained with examples, period is defined as 'how far back to fetch' with examples like '1mo', '3mo', '6mo', and interval is defined as 'bar size' with examples like '1h', '1d'. It could also state accepted formats or defaults, but the provided semantics are enough for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compute standard technical indicators (SMA-20/50, RSI-14, MACD, Bollinger Bands, ATR-14, volume vs its 20-period average) for a stock symbol.' The explicit indicator list makes the tool's scope precise and clearly distinct from siblings like get_quote, get_fundamentals, and get_candles.

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 clear context: use this to compute indicators over a period/interval, and it explicitly warns not to prefetch candles via get_candles because that tool's raw output is too large to round-trip through a tool call. It also flags the 50-candle minimum for non-null results, though it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer get_quote or get_fundamentals.

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