get_indicator_inputs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation and specifies what data will be returned (names, current values, defaults, tooltips). It doesn't cover edge behaviors like missing studies or empty results, but for a non-mutating getter this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded, and includes a useful example. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant detail.

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?

For a simple getter with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It includes example output to clarify the format. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of behavior when no study_id is provided, though the schema already documents 'Default: all indicators'.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states about study_id and chart_index defaults, although the example does contextualize the output format.

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 specific action ('Get the input parameters (settings) of indicators') and the resource (indicators on a TradingView chart). It also lists the output contents (names, current values, defaults, tooltips) with a concrete example, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_indicator_values or set_indicator_input.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description — if you need indicator settings, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to use get_indicator_values instead, which would have earned a higher score.

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