screener_get_technical_indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the data comes from free Yahoo Finance daily price history and requires no login. This provides context beyond annotations but does not disclose potential rate limits or data latency.

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?

Single sentence efficiently lists outputs, data source, and auth requirement. No redundancy; every word adds value.

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 4 parameters with zero schema description coverage and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, leaving the agent to guess about period defaults, exchange options, or response format. Output schema may help, but parameter coverage is insufficient.

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 mentions none of the four parameters (symbol, period, exchange, response_format) and does not explain their role or acceptable values. Agent must rely solely on schema names.

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?

Description clearly lists the specific technical indicators computed (SMA20/50/200, RSI14, ATR14, price-vs-SMA flags) and the data source. It distinguishes the tool from sibling financial data tools (balance sheet, cash flow, etc.) by focusing on technical indicators from price history.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for technical analysis but does not state prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but no comparison is provided.

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