get_technical_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the broker session context and fails to disclose what happens if no active broker exists, whether data is fetched live or historically, the return format for multiple indicators, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main action ('Get multiple technical indicators') and includes the key contextual qualifier about the broker session. It is concise with no wasted words, though it sacrifices some informational depth for brevity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is under-specified. It does not explain what indicators are supported beyond the schema's vague 'etc.', nor does it clarify the expected response structure, error conditions, or the significance of the 'active or specific broker' setting. This incompleteness would leave an agent under-informed for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by emphasizing 'multiple' indicators and the 'active or specific broker' selection, which maps to the `indicators` and `broker` parameters. However, it does not explain any parameter interplay or edge cases, keeping it at baseline.

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 retrieves multiple technical indicators for a symbol, which distinguishes it from single-indicator siblings like get_rsi and get_macd. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or mention that this is the preferred tool for batch queries, so it lacks the strong differentiation seen in the highest-caliber examples.

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 phrase 'from active or specific broker in your session' provides context on the prerequisite of an active broker session or an explicitly specified broker, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus calling individual indicator tools repeatedly. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, leaving usage decisions partially implicit.

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