atr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data freshness, authentication needs, or side effects. Only describes the computation, not the tool's behavior.

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 short (3 sentences + example) and front-loaded with key information. However, the first sentence contains a redundant repetition of the same phrase, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values but only mentions 'volatility-regime classification' without detailing output structure. For a 4-parameter tool, more context on what the response contains is needed for effective usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds an example URL illustrating usage, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states (e.g., format constraints, default values). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool computes Average True Range (Wilder's) and adds volatility-regime classification by historical percentile. It includes an example and mentions applicability to crypto or stocks, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like 'volatility' or 'fvg'.

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 implies usage for ATR and regime classification, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'volatility' or 'momentum_score'). No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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