ad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fetch accumulation/distribution line', which implies a read-only operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., time series data). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Fetch accumulation/distribution line'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, though it's under-specified rather than concise, but in terms of structure, it earns full marks for brevity.

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 complexity (a financial indicator tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, output, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly in a server with many similar tools.

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 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (symbol, interval, month, datatype) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they mean, their formats, or examples (e.g., symbol as ticker, interval as time frame). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Fetch accumulation/distribution line' clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (accumulation/distribution line), which is a technical indicator in finance. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., adosc, adx, adxr) that also relate to accumulation/distribution indicators, leaving the specific purpose vague in context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for financial indicators and data, there's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons (e.g., when to choose 'ad' over 'adosc' or other technical analysis tools), making it misleadingly incomplete.

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