strategy-signal

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the return values (indicators, posture, price levels) and mentions pricing and free data sources, but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, error handling, or latency. It provides moderate transparency but lacks key behavioral details.

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: three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, listing outputs and pricing/data sources. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Excellent structure.

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 only two parameters with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and the asset classes. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, but for a straightforward signal tool, it is largely 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% with both parameters clearly described. The description adds context about the output but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema already covers parameters well.

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 generates a technical analysis signal for US equities, ETFs, or crypto, enumerating the specific indicators returned (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, etc.) and the directional posture. This specificity and resource definition strongly distinguishes it from siblings like equity-technicals or crypto-momentum-pack.

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 mentions 'Richer output than comparable services' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not clearly articulated.

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