Retrieve RSI-14, SMA-20, or EMA-20 values for a stock symbol, returning the current value and data window used.
Technical indicator for a symbol.
kind: "rsi" (RSI-14), "sma" (SMA-20) or "ema" (EMA-20).
Returns the latest value plus the data window used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | rsi | |
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations on the tool, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It does state the output behavior 'Returns the latest value plus the data window used,' but it does not clarify the window's size or meaning, response format, error handling, or data source.
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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and uses clear formatting for the kind values. It contains no redundant or filler content; each clause contributes.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, parameter options, and return summary. However, it leaves important context undefined, such as what the data window contains, the symbol format, and how invalid values are handled.
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 for both parameters. It thoroughly defines kind with its allowed values and period meanings, but symbol is only referred to generically as 'a symbol' with no format or example.
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 identifies a technical-indicator tool that returns the latest computed value and the data window used, and it names the supported kinds (rsi, sma, ema). This is enough to differentiate it from quote, history, and market-status siblings, though the sibling distinction is not explicitly stated.
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?
No usage conditions or exclusions are given; the description never tells an agent when to choose this tool over get_quote, get_history, or market_status. It only implies that indicator requests like RSI/SMA/EMA belong here, which is not explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.