analyze_indicators

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns text analysis, implying it is a read-only query with no destructive side effects. While it does not explicitly say 'no modifications', the nature of analysis is clear and there is 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 two sentences with an additional line for sibling references. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key indicators. No superfluous text, but could be slightly more structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage hint (limit), and alternatives. It lacks details on return format beyond 'text' and does not explain all parameters fully, but is sufficient for an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives meaningful guidance for the 'limit' parameter (specify sufficient value like 200), but does not explain 'pair' or 'type' parameters. Partial compensation.

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 explicitly states it performs comprehensive analysis of technical indicators (RSI, MACD, SMA) and returns latest values, trend judgments, and signals as text. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning that drawing charts and backtesting are handled by other tools.

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 advises specifying a sufficient limit (e.g., 200 daily candles) and clearly directs when to use alternative tools: for drawing charts use prepare_chart_data/render_chart_svg, for backtesting use run_backtest. This provides explicit when-not and alternative usage.

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