calculate_indicator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'calculated values with timestamps and trading signals where applicable,' which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose data freshness, required authentication, rate limits, or any side effects beyond being a read-only calculation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and resource. Every sentence adds value: first defines action and assets, second describes output. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description provides only a high-level overview of return values ('calculated values with timestamps and trading signals'), which is insufficient for an agent to understand the exact output structure for each indicator (e.g., fields for MACD vs RSI). Error handling and data availability are also omitted.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., defaults for period, enum values for indicator). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing the supported indicators, which is already in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool calculates technical indicators on price data for stocks or cryptocurrencies, and explicitly lists supported indicators (RSI, MACD, SMA, EMA, Bollinger Bands, Stochastic). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_dcf_valuation or get_historical_data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_historical_data for raw data, calculate_historical_volatility for volatility, etc.). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to sibling tools.

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