technical_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema: bars affect indicator warm-up ('More bars means slower indicators like the 200-EMA actually warm up'), and the rating exposes every individual vote so users can 'explain why' rather than just trust a label. This meaningfully sets expectations for how the tool behaves and what to do with the output.

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 well-structured with an intro, an Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition of schema data. The use of line breaks and bold-like labels ('Args:', 'Returns:') makes it scannable, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 4 parameters and a composite rating, and the description covers the input semantics, output contents, and a key behavioral nuance (warm-up). An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate exact return structures, but it adds the explanatory value of why the rating is transparent. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains every parameter: symbol with examples, market with allowed values, interval with options including the crypto-only 4h caveat, and bars with its impact on indicator warm-up. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Run a full technical analysis on one instrument.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_price or technical_scan by emphasizing 'full' analysis on a single instrument, and the Returns section further clarifies its unique composite scoring functionality.

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 implies usage context through 'full technical analysis on one instrument' and the param constraints, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings like multi_timeframe_analysis or technical_scan, nor does it mention when not to use it. Clear context is present, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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