atr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only computation and gives the endpoint shape, but discloses nothing about authentication, rate limits, caching, or what exactly is returned (ATR value, regime label, percentile).

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 core sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the leading phrase is duplicated verbatim after the em dash, which is pure padding. The example is helpful; the redundancy costs a point.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain the return shape, but it never says what a caller receives (ATR value, regime label, percentile band). For a quantitative endpoint whose whole value is the regime classification, that gap is significant.

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 100%, so all four parameters (symbol, period, timeframe, class) are already documented in the schema with defaults and formats. The description's example restates symbol/timeframe/period without adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific indicator (Wilder's Average True Range) plus an added computation (volatility-regime classification by historical percentile), and scopes it to crypto or stocks. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'volatility' tool, which likely overlaps heavily.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as volatility, ohlcv, or price, nor any prerequisite or context guidance. The only guidance is an example URL, which shows syntax rather than selection criteria.

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