obv

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. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description provides no information about authentication needs, rate limits, data sources, response format, or any behavioral traits. This leaves the agent with minimal understanding of how the tool behaves.

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 just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. There's zero 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 a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or any behavioral context needed for proper 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description provides absolutely no information about what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', or 'datatype' mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the complete 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 on balance volume' states a clear action (fetch) and target (on balance volume), which is a specific financial indicator. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools that also fetch various financial data and indicators, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 numerous sibling tools for financial data and indicators, there's no indication of what makes 'on balance volume' unique or when it's appropriate compared to other volume or technical analysis tools.

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