I don’t use what I call “indicators”, at all, but I do draw horizontal lines representing my impression of recent support and resistance, and I wouldn’t want to trade without them.
They’re “indicative of my perception of recent support and resistance”, though, so I suppose some people might call them “indicators“?
I don’t know what you mean by “tools”, though. Perhaps you’d like to clarify that? The chart itself is a “tool”, isn’t it? Maybe you’re thinking of things like pivot points or Fibonacci levels, when you say “tools”, to differentiate those from the things that people are clearly agreed are “indicators” like MACD, RSI and so on? I don’t use pivot points or Fibonacci levels, either, myself. I’ve never seen any non-anecdotal evidence that they’re any more reliable or significant than randomly drawn lines. And all the objective, independent studies I’ve read that have actively looked for any such evidence have failed to find it at all. (Randomly drawn lines can easily be made to look like really reliable tools/indicators, though, so perhaps that’s not a great surprise!)
The things I trade (without indicators at all) are reliable bar patterns such as 1-2-3 formations, Ross Hooks, Slaughterbeck entries, “long bomb” entries, and so on.
As so many others (including all the people who taught me, and the people who wrote the forex-trading textbooks I found so valuable and helpful) found, it was only when I (eventually) learned to abandon indicators and develop an understanding of pure price action that my trading became steadily and consistently profitable and I was able to make a reliable living from it.
Indicators are derived from previous prices and for me they don’t have enough predictive value to be helpful at all. It was only really when I started understanding the reasons for that, that my “real trading education” began.