technical_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by detailing the return format (all indicators current values + plain-English summary). No other behavioral traits (e.g., performance, data source) are disclosed, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 efficiently structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by details. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. A minor improvement would be to separate the summary from the indicator list.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides a complete list of indicators and patterns, plus the plain-English summary. It does not address possible errors or data limitations, but the tool is well-contextualized.

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 does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for symbol and period; it only repeats the default value for period. The schema already sufficiently documents the parameters.

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 runs comprehensive technical analysis on a ticker, listing specific indicators (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, SMAs, EMAs) and patterns (Golden/Death Cross, overbought/oversold). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like price_history or risk_metrics by emphasizing comprehensiveness and a plain-English summary.

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 implies the tool is for a full technical analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., a single indicator tool). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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