adx

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. The description only states what the tool fetches without any information about rate limits, authentication requirements, data sources, response format, or error conditions. For a financial data tool with no annotations, this is completely inadequate.

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 concise at just 4 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the structure itself is efficient.

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 a technical indicator tool with 5 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what ADX is, how it's calculated, what the parameters mean, what data source is used, or how results are returned.

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 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description provides absolutely no information about what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', or 'datatype' mean, their expected formats, valid values, or how they affect the ADX calculation. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 states the tool fetches the average directional movement index, which is a specific financial indicator. However, it doesn't clarify what resource this operates on (e.g., stock data, forex data) or distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'ad', 'adosc', or 'adxr' that appear to be related technical 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including other technical indicators (e.g., 'rsi', 'macd', 'ad', 'adxr'), there's no indication of what makes this specific ADX tool appropriate or how it differs from related tools.

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