Get technical analysis

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

Annotations already declare the tool is readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds behavior about two output modes ('recommendation summary' vs 'detailed indicators') and mentions 'Local mode calculates deterministic indicators from loaded bars'. While it adds useful context, 'Local mode' is not fully explained, which slightly limits transparency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences long, front-loads the main action, and avoids unnecessary words. Every phrase adds value: the distinction between summary and detailed indicators, and the note about local mode. It is concise without sacrificing essential information.

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 moderate complexity (two params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the core behavior adequately. It explains what the tool returns and the role of the interval parameter. However, the undefined 'Local mode' and lack of details on output structure could leave some gaps, suggesting a slight need for more context.

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%, with both parameters described (symbol and interval). The description adds semantic meaning to the interval parameter by indicating that setting it changes the output to 'detailed indicators', which is beyond the schema's generic 'Bar interval' description. This helps the agent understand the impact of specifying an interval, though it could be more explicit about syntax or examples.

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 gets a 'multi-timeframe recommendation summary' or 'detailed indicators' depending on interval, making the primary purpose clear. It differentiates from siblings like market_get_quotes or market_get_price by emphasizing technical analysis and recommendation summaries. The verb 'Get' with the resource 'technical analysis' is specific and actionable.

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 when to use the tool: for a recommendation summary by default, or detailed indicators when interval is set. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with sibling tools like tradingview_analyze_symbol or market_screen. The phrase 'Local mode' is ambiguous and lacks clear context on when to use this vs. other modes.

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