adxr

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 only states what the tool does ('fetch'), without any information on permissions, rate limits, data sources, response format, error handling, or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple 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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 5 parameters, 3 required), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context such as parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage guidance, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 5 parameters (symbol, interval, month, time_period, datatype) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they mean, their expected formats, or examples (e.g., what 'interval' or 'datatype' refer to). This leaves parameters entirely undocumented.

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 clearly states the verb 'fetch' and the specific resource 'average directional movement index rating', which is a technical financial indicator. It distinguishes this tool from many siblings that fetch different indicators (e.g., 'adx', 'adosc', 'rsi'), though not all siblings are indicators (e.g., 'company_overview', 'news_sentiment'). The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'rating' entails versus raw values.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain how 'adxr' differs from similar tools like 'adx' or other technical indicators in the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases. The description alone offers no context for selection among the many financial data tools available.

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