ppo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, error handling, or output format, which is critical for a tool with 8 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 sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose 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 high complexity (8 parameters, 5 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and usage context, making it inadequate 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 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, failing to compensate for this gap by explaining what parameters like 'symbol', 'interval', or 'matype' mean or their expected values.

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 percentage price oscillator' states a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('percentage price oscillator'), indicating it retrieves a specific technical indicator. However, it's somewhat vague about what this indicator represents and doesn't distinguish from similar financial indicator tools like 'apo' or 'macd' among the many siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for financial indicators (e.g., 'apo', 'macd', 'rsi'), the description lacks context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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