MCP Avantage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'True Range' gives no information about what the tool actually does operationally - whether it fetches historical data, calculates values, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or has any side effects. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about the tool's behavior.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any meaningful information about the tool's purpose or usage, making it inefficient for the agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 a technical indicator tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what True Range is, how it's calculated, what the output contains, or how it differs from similar indicators. The agent would need to guess or have external knowledge to use this tool effectively.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters (symbol, interval, datatype, month). The description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'True Range' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs. It doesn't indicate whether this calculates, retrieves, or analyzes True Range data, nor does it distinguish this from sibling technical indicator tools like 'atr' (Average True Range) or other similar indicators.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling technical indicator tools available (like atr, bbands, sma, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes True Range from other volatility or range-based indicators, nor any context about appropriate use cases.

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