technical_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the set of indicators returned and the Indian-stock scope, which is useful. However, it does not mention data source, limitations, or any special behavior such as how invalid tickers are handled or whether data is real-time or historical.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then a bulleted list of indicators, then parameter definitions. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every part adds useful information and the format is scannable.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation details: what the tool returns and how to specify ticker and period. It lacks some behavioral context like data source or error behavior, but the core information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well by explaining ticker with concrete examples ('RELIANCE', 'TCS', 'INFY') and listing valid period values ('1mo, 3mo, 6mo, 1y, 2y'). It does not explicitly mention the default period, but the schema already provides that.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get comprehensive technical analysis indicators for an Indian stock.' It then enumerates the exact indicators (RSI, MACD, SMA/EMA, ROC, Bollinger Bands), making its purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like stock_quote or company_fundamentals.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when technical indicators for an Indian stock are needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can route to it without confusion.

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