Owl Group Trading — Indicator Code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool returns (source code, verification proof, summary, URL) and implies it is a read-only operation (no side effects mentioned). However, it does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but given the nature of a get tool, this is adequate.

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 concise: two sentences plus a clear instruction. It front-loads the main action, then lists parameters and return values efficiently. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (commented source code, verification proof, summary, URL). It also mentions the prerequisite tool. For a simple 2-param tool, this is sufficiently complete, though it could mention possible error cases.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds example values for slug and platform, which is helpful but does not add significant new constraints or meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns the verified implementation of an Owl Group Trading indicator, with specific verb ('Return') and resource ('implementation'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool list_indicators by mentioning that list_indicators should be called first to get valid slugs and platforms.

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 explicitly advises to 'Call list_indicators first to see valid slugs and platforms,' which serves as a prerequisite and differentiates from the sibling tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, this guidance is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Takes no arguments' and returns a list, which implies a read-only operation. It could be more explicit about idempotency or side effects, but for a read-only listing, this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and list the returned fields, with no superfluous words. Every sentence 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates all returned fields (slug, name, summary, platforms, glossary concept, tolerance, URL). For a parameterless tool, this fully specifies behavior and output.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline score is 4 as per guidelines. The description confirms no arguments are needed, and no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 states 'List every indicator in the Owl Group Trading code library' and enumerates specific fields returned (slug, name, summary, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tool 'get_indicator_code' implies a retrieval function, so this listing tool's role is distinct.

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 notes it returns 'the authoritative catalog so the answer comes from real data,' implying use for accurate indicator listings. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context with sibling tool suggests it's for catalog queries.

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