stoch

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. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., time series data, numerical values). For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the key action and resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (9 parameters, technical financial indicator), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in context, parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output format, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters (including technical ones like 'fastkperiod', 'slowdmatype'), the description doesn't explain what these parameters do, their valid values, or how they affect the stochastic oscillator calculation. This leaves parameters undocumented and confusing.

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 stochastic oscillator' clearly indicates the action (fetch) and resource (stochastic oscillator), which is a technical indicator in finance. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'stochf' or 'stochrsi' that also deal with stochastic indicators, leaving ambiguity about what specific variant or calculation this provides.

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 many sibling tools for technical indicators (e.g., 'stochf', 'stochrsi', 'rsi', 'macd'), there's no indication of what makes this stochastic oscillator unique or when it's preferred over other indicators or similar tools.

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