adosc

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. It states 'Fetch', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as data sources, rate limits, error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple fetch operation, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 of a technical indicator tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context about parameter usage, behavioral details, and expected outputs, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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?

With 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'fastperiod', 'slowperiod', or 'datatype' mean in the context of fetching the AD oscillator, failing 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 oscillator' clearly states the action (fetch) and the specific technical indicator (accumulation/distribution oscillator), which is more specific than just the tool name 'adosc'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ad' (which likely fetches the accumulation/distribution line) or 'adx' (average directional index), leaving the purpose somewhat vague regarding exact scope.

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 many sibling tools for technical indicators (e.g., 'ad', 'adx', 'rsi', 'macd'), there's no indication of the specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons that would help an agent choose appropriately in context.

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