roc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the tool actually returns. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with 6 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 three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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?

For a technical indicator tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from similar tools in the extensive sibling list.

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 and 6 parameters (4 required), the description adds zero semantic information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', 'series_type', or 'datatype' mean or how they should be used together.

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 rate of change' restates the tool name 'roc' (which likely stands for 'rate of change'), making it tautological. It doesn't specify what resource or data is being fetched (e.g., financial instrument data, technical indicator values), nor does it distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools that also fetch financial/technical data.

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 100+ sibling tools including many technical indicators (like rsi, macd, mom) and data fetchers, there's no indication of what makes 'roc' unique or appropriate for specific scenarios.

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