get_technical_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation, returns specific indicators, is updated daily, and covers 127 out of 130 companies. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or potential rate limits.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists the outputs, and the third provides update frequency and coverage. No extraneous text. Information is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns by listing indicators, along with coverage and update frequency. It could briefly mention the response format, but the list of indicators suffices.

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 covers the single 'ticker' parameter with a clear description, and the description adds example ticker symbols (AIR, FPH, MEL), enhancing understanding. No additional parameter details are needed.

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 returns technical analysis indicators for NZX companies, listing specific indicators (SMA-50/100/200, RSI-14, golden/death cross, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_accounting_quality or get_market_signals, which focus on different aspects.

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 for obtaining technical signals but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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