willr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but adds no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only fetch, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns historical or real-time data, or any error handling—critical gaps for a financial data tool with multiple 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—'Fetch williams percent range' is maximally concise. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of underspecification, but structurally, it earns full points for efficiency.

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 (financial indicator with 5 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage context, behavioral traits, parameter explanations, and output details, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 5 parameters (3 required), the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', or 'datatype' represent, their formats, or how they affect the Williams %R calculation, failing to compensate for the 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 williams percent range' restates the tool name 'willr' (Williams %R is a technical indicator), making it tautological. It specifies the action 'fetch' and the resource 'williams percent range', but doesn't clarify what this indicator measures or its financial context, unlike some sibling tools that mention technical analysis explicitly.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools for similar indicators (e.g., rsi, stoch) or specify contexts like technical analysis, trading decisions, or data validation, leaving the agent with no usage cues.

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