ultosc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description provides no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it's a read-only operation, what data format it returns, whether it has rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. 'Fetch' implies retrieval but gives no further behavioral context.

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. While it's severely under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured - it simply states the minimal function 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?

For a technical indicator calculation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an ultimate oscillator is, what the parameters mean, what data it returns, or how it differs from other technical indicators in the sibling tool 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 7 parameters (5 required), the description provides absolutely no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', or the three timeperiod parameters mean, nor what 'datatype' refers to. The description fails to compensate for the complete 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 ultimate oscillator' restates the tool name 'ultosc' (which appears to be an abbreviation for 'ultimate oscillator'), making it essentially tautological. It doesn't explain what an ultimate oscillator is, what resource it operates on, or what specific data it retrieves beyond the name itself.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (like rsi, macd, stoch, etc.). The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios.

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