atr

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 average true range' only states the action without any details on data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. 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 phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly despite its 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 (5 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any behavioral context, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or examples, 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 average true range' clearly states the action (fetch) and the financial indicator (average true range), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'natr' (normalized average true range) or 'trange' (true range), leaving ambiguity about when to choose one over another.

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., 'natr', 'trange', 'rsi'), there's no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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