get_technical_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return contents, including the signal score, which is useful. Yet it does not mention any potential limitations, rate limits, computation details, or error behavior, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency for a read operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a concise list of outputs and a use case. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, output contents, and intended use case, which is sufficient for a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema. It could be more complete by explaining how the signal score is calculated or what time range is covered, but it is reasonably complete.

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 100% for both parameters, with symbol example and interval enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as how interval affects the returned indicators.

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 it queries major technical indicators at once and lists them (current price, RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, ADX, ATR, Stochastic, EMA20/60, Volume MA, signal score). This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch individual indicators like get_rsi or get_macd.

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?

It explicitly notes suitability for AI automated trading to minimize analysis call count, giving clear contextual guidance on when to use. However, it does not name alternatives directly or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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