get_technical_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions returning values and a signal commentary but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, compute constraints, or what the signal commentary contains. This is a significant gap for a computation-heavy tool.

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 two concise sentences plus a brief example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and indicator list, though the signal commentary detail could be better integrated. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format more. It briefly mentions returning indicator values and a signal commentary but doesn't specify the structure, leaving ambiguity for an agent. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, but behavioral context is incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters including defaults, enums, and descriptions. The description adds virtually no parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: computes technical indicators from OHLC history. It enumerates the exact indicators (RSI(14), SMA(20/50/200), EMA(12/26), MACD, Bollinger, ATR(14)) and gives symbol examples, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_history which return raw data.

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 specifies the input (OHLC history) and the output (indicator values + current signal commentary in the last N bars), implying when to use it. It provides example symbols but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_stock_history or get_market_indicators, nor any exclusions.

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