ht_dcperiod

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. The description only states what is fetched, with no information about how the tool behaves: whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 6 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits necessary contextual information.

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 (technical indicator calculation with 5 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect the calculation, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what the parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the calculation. Parameters like 'month', 'series_type', and 'datatype' are completely unexplained, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose.

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 tool's purpose as 'Fetch hilbert transform - dominant cycle period', which specifies the action (fetch) and the technical indicator being retrieved. It distinguishes from many siblings that fetch different indicators or data types, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar Hilbert transform tools like ht_dcphase, ht_phasor, ht_sine, ht_trendline, and ht_trendmode.

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. It doesn't mention what the dominant cycle period represents, when this indicator is useful in analysis, or how it differs from other Hilbert transform tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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