analyze_stock

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 computed indicators (SMA20, SMA50, EMA20, RSI14) and explains that insufficient history results in null values, providing clear behavioral expectations.

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 concise and well-structured, using a docstring format with dedicated Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the main purpose and every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description still explains the return values in detail, including the closing price, three moving averages, RSI, and handling of nulls. It covers the lookback window and default behavior, making it complete for an agent.

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 0%, so parameter documentation relies entirely on the description. The description adds meaning to both parameters: symbol is explained with an example (AAPL), and period is described as a lookback window with default '6mo' and a cross-reference to get_stock_history for more details.

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 'Compute common technical indicators for a stock over a lookback window,' which uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_stock_history (raw history) and get_stock_quote (current quote).

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 (when needing technical indicators) and references get_stock_history for period details, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast alternatives. Sibling tools are distinct, so some guidance is present.

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