indicators

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a pure read/compute, how lookback before start_ns is handled, or what `fill_empty` changes. Only the phrase 'over stored OHLCV' hints at the data dependency.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a single fragment cannot front-load the semantics of an 8-parameter tool.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 13% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing on almost every argument and on the return shape. It is a label, not an operating contract.

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 only 13% (only asset_class documented), so the description should compensate. It implicitly enumerates the accepted `indicator` values (MA/RSI/MACD/Bollinger) and the default period of 14 matches RSI, but symbol, start_ns/end_ns, interval, fill_empty, and null-indicator behavior are all unexplained.

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?

States the resource (technical indicators) and names the concrete computations (moving averages, RSI, MACD, Bollinger bands) over stored OHLCV, which is enough to distinguish it from raw data siblings like query_market_data. It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb ('compute'/'calculate'), so the action is only implied.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus query_market_data, resample, or base-market-data. Nothing tells the agent that stored OHLCV must already exist (i.e., that backfill/collect may be a prerequisite), nor what to do when `indicator` is left null.

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