indicator_typical_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the calculation method but does not mention that the tool fetches OHLCV data based on the parameters, its read-only nature, or what the response format is. This is insufficient for a transparent behavioral profile.

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 sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the action ('Calculate the Typical Price'). However, the phrase 'balanced trend view' is somewhat vague and adds minor padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a single value or a series) and how it uses the input parameters. It only explains the formula, leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure and any data-fetching 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 schema describes all parameters (symbol, limit, timeframe) at 100% coverage, so baseline 3 applies. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning to the parameters.

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 calculates the Typical Price, a specific indicator, and explains it averages high, low, and close prices. This distinguishes it from sibling indicator tools like indicator_sma or indicator_ema.

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 phrase 'for a balanced trend view' gives some usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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