indicator

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 only states that a single quote is returned, but does not mention response format, update frequency, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves significant gaps for an agent to predict behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that instantly communicates the core purpose. It uses compact, precise wording with examples, and no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks additional context such as return value structure, error behavior, or relationship to sibling tools (e.g., how it differs from 'quote' or 'indicators'). It provides the essential gist but not enough for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 input schema provides only a 'slug' string with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that it is a 'display slug' and supplies multiple concrete examples (eurusd, eursek, usdjpy, OMXHelsinki). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it does not fully define the accepted format or list all possible slugs.

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 tool returns a single indicator/FX quote by display slug, with concrete examples (eurusd, eursek, usdjpy, OMXHelsinki). This distinguishes it from the plural 'indicators' sibling and other quote-related tools by specifying the resource and lookup key.

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 when you have a display slug for a specific indicator/FX pair, and gives examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'indicators' or 'quote', nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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