volatility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it discloses that price data is fetched implicitly and that tickers must be supplied as a comma-separated list, which the agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the auto-fetch behavior, then the tickers rule and indicator roster. No filler, though the indicator enumeration duplicates the schema enum and the 'Requires tickers' claim is stated with more force than the schema warrants.

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?

For an 18-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers what the tool computes, that prices are auto-fetched, and the required input shape. The remaining gap is that it does not map which of the many indicator-specific parameters (atr_window, multiplier, num_std_dev, etc.) apply to which indicator, leaving the agent to infer this from the schema defaults.

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% but many parameter descriptions are generic ('Value for window', 'Value for multiplier'), so the schema is not fully self-explanatory. The description compensates on the two most important parameters by stating tickers format ('AAPL,MSFT,GOOGL') and naming the available indicator values; however, it never signals that 'indicator' is the only formally required field, and it flatly claims tickers is required when the schema lists it as optional.

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 names the resource (volatility technical indicators) and enumerates the concrete indicators (Bollinger Bands, True Range, ATR, Supertrend, Keltner, Donchian, volatility cone), so the agent knows exactly what this category tool computes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from category siblings like momentum or risk, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives one useful usage note ('price data is fetched automatically — no need to fetch prices first') and the tickers formatting rule, but never states when to pick volatility over momentum/risk siblings or how to choose among the seven indicators. Usage is implied from the indicator list rather than guided.

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