rocr

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 rate of change ratio', which implies a read operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data sources, or output format. This minimal information is insufficient for understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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 (6 parameters, 4 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose in context, parameter meanings, or expected behavior, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional information.

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 parameters like 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', 'series_type', and 'datatype' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. For example, it does not explain what 'series_type' or 'datatype' refer to, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 ratio' restates the tool name 'rocr' (likely 'rate of change ratio') without elaboration, making it tautological. It does not specify what resource or data is being fetched (e.g., financial data for a symbol), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'roc' or 'mom', which may serve similar purposes. This lack of specificity leaves the purpose vague.

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 (e.g., 'roc', 'mom', 'analytics_fixed_window'), the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection among similar financial indicators.

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