getADX

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds only that it uses the FMP ADX API and historical price data, which is already implied. No additional disclosure about potential errors, data freshness, or edge cases. Minimal value added beyond annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently state purpose and benefit. No superfluous words or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description lacks information about the output format or return value. Given the absence of an output schema, the tool would benefit from describing what the API returns (e.g., a JSON object with ADX values). The parameter documentation is complete, but the overall picture is incomplete.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description does not add any additional context or constraints beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 calculates ADX for a stock, specifying the resource and action. It mentions 'analyze trend strength and direction' which adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling technical indicator tools like getRSI or getSMA, which would strengthen clarity.

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 gives a general use case ('analyze trend strength and direction') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or limitations. No explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings.

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