QuantOracle

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

While annotations correctly declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds zero behavioral context. It fails to specify what the 13 indicators are, what format the output takes, or any constraints beyond the schema minimums.

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 extremely brief (6 words), avoiding bloat, but it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test by offering only a domain label that largely repeats the annotation title without actionable guidance.

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 (13 distinct indicators) and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return format and list the indicators calculated. The current description leaves critical output semantics undocumented.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description ('13 technical indicators...') adds no additional meaning regarding parameter semantics, usage examples, or valid ranges beyond what the schema already documents.

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 identifies the domain (technical indicators) and mentions 'composite signals,' but lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'calculates,' 'computes') to clarify the action performed. It does not differentiate from statistical siblings like stats_realized-volatility or stats_sharpe-ratio.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the statistical or options analysis siblings. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., minimum data quality) or when volume data is required versus optional.

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