plus_di

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. It only states 'fetch', implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as data sources, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This leaves critical operational aspects unspecified.

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 plus directional indicator', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it is structurally efficient without unnecessary elaboration.

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 implied by 5 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose in context, parameter usage, behavioral expectations, or return values, failing to provide necessary information for effective tool 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 (symbol, interval, month, time_period, datatype) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected values, or how they affect the fetch operation, 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 plus directional indicator' restates the tool name 'plus_di' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action 'fetch' and the resource 'plus directional indicator', but lacks specificity about what this indicator represents or its financial context, unlike some sibling tools like 'company_overview' or 'stock_quote' that clearly indicate their domain.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'minus_di' or 'adx' that might be related, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for its use, leaving the agent without directional cues.

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