aroonosc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'oscillator' entails in terms of output format or calculations. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 with a single phrase, 'Fetch aroon oscillator', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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 5 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, or expected outputs, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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%, so parameters like 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', and 'datatype' are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, failing to explain what these inputs represent or how they affect the fetch operation.

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 aroon oscillator' restates the tool name 'aroonosc' (which appears to be a contraction of 'aroon oscillator'), making it tautological. It doesn't specify what resource is being fetched (e.g., financial data for a security) or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'aroon'.

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. With many sibling tools for technical indicators (e.g., 'aroon', 'adx', 'rsi'), the description offers no context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons.

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