vwap

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. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description reveals nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, data sources, response format, or potential side effects. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted language. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function.

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 of financial data tools, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what VWAP is, how it's calculated, what the parameters do, what data source is used, or what format the response takes. This leaves too many unanswered questions for effective tool use.

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 4 parameters (symbol, interval, month, datatype) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the VWAP calculation. This leaves critical usage details completely unspecified.

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 volume weighted average price' clearly states the verb (fetch) and resource (volume weighted average price), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings (many financial data tools), but it's specific about what metric it retrieves.

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 alternatives. With many sibling tools for financial indicators and data, the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools like sma, ema, or other price metrics.

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