romaco_get_indicator_values

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a read operation, returns a compressed summary by default, warns about high token cost for raw series, and details state classifications per indicator type (RSI, MACD, BOLL, default). No contradiction.

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 (5 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose and output. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, output, state classification, cost modes, and usage condition. No redundant text.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description fully explains the output format (compressed and raw) and state classification, covering all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial value: clarifies indicatorId as preferred and indicatorName as fallback, explains the default behavior of acknowledgeHighTokenCost=false, and warns of cost implications. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Read the current state of an indicator on the chart' with specific output details (last value, previous value, delta, state classification). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like romaco_get_chart_context by focusing solely on indicator values.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the compressed default vs. the raw series via acknowledgeHighTokenCost, stating 'Only opt in to raw series when the user explicitly asked for bar-by-bar values' and explaining token cost trade-offs.

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