ht_trendline

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 mentions 'fetch' without specifying whether this is a read-only operation, what data sources are used, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, every word earns its place by specifying the action ('fetch'), the mathematical concept ('hilbert transform'), and the specific component ('trendline'). There's no wasted language.

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 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 interact, what the Hilbert transform trendline represents mathematically, or any prerequisites for use. This leaves too many unanswered questions for effective tool selection and 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 have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'series_type', or 'datatype' mean, their expected formats, or valid values. With 3 required parameters and no parameter guidance, this is inadequate.

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 hilbert transform - trendline' states the action (fetch) and resource (hilbert transform trendline), but it's vague about what exactly is being fetched. It doesn't specify if this is a calculation, indicator value, or time series data, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like ht_dcperiod or ht_sine that also fetch Hilbert transform components.

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., ht_dcperiod, ht_phasor, ht_sine, ht_trendmode) and general data fetching tools (e.g., time_series_daily), there's no indication of what makes this specific Hilbert transform trendline tool appropriate or when other tools should be preferred.

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