get_full_technical_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., that it reads data, is safe, or any rate limits, caching, or output size). The description only lists indicators.

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 listing indicators is very concise. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Overall efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the format or scope of the analysis (e.g., across all days? summary?). For a multi-indicator tool, more context on what is returned is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for ticker and days. The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond the list of indicators, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Full technical analysis' and lists multiple indicators (RSI, MACD, etc.), clearly indicating it combines these analyses. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_rsi_analysis which are single-indicator, but does not explicitly state this aggregation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. the many individual indicator tools (e.g., get_rsi_analysis, get_support_resistance). No when-not scenarios or alternatives mentioned.

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