get_technical_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently mentions the cost ($0.002 USDC), which is critical behavioral information, and lists the indicators returned. However, it does not describe output format, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise, with one sentence for purpose and one for cost. It omits any fluff and front-loads the core information, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description includes the essential details: indicators, parameter scope, and cost. It lacks an explicit return structure, but the indicator list gives a reasonable expectation. The coverage is adequate for selection and basic invocation, though not exhaustive.

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 covers half of the parameters with descriptions (symbol), while interval has an enum but no description. The description adds generic context ('for a symbol/interval') but does not elaborate on parameter formats or enum constraints. Since the schema already provides the symbol example and interval options, the added value is marginal.

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's function: it retrieves specific technical indicators (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, ATR) for a given symbol and interval. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices and get_funding_rates, which serve different data domains.

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 the tool is used when technical indicator data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides the context of symbol/interval but no direct comparison to sibling tools. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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