volatility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that price data is fetched automatically and that omitting the indicator returns the list of available indicators, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like rate limits, pagination, or what happens with invalid tickers, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a short paragraph and a bullet-like list of indicators. It avoids unnecessary fluff and provides essential usage hints. Slightly more structure could be added, but it's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, 7 indicators) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the key usage points: automatic price fetching, required tickers, indicator list, and window defaults. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema covers that. It could mention the 'show_columns' parameter for reducing output, but that's in the schema. Overall, adequate for the complexity.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context for the 'indicator' parameter (required, omitting returns list) and the 'tickers' parameter (comma-separated, required). It also explains the 'window' parameter defaults for different indicators. This adds value beyond the schema, but the schema already does most of the work, so a 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 computes volatility technical indicators (ATR, True Range) and lists the available indicators. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on volatility metrics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other technical analysis tools like momentum or overlap.

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 clear usage guidance: it states that price data is fetched automatically (no need to fetch prices first), requires tickers, and lists available indicators. It also mentions that omitting the indicator returns the list of available indicators. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like momentum or overlap.

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