indicator_divergence

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the core comparison logic and return types, but does not mention edge cases, data sufficiency, or computational side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence packs purpose, divergence types, and return structure without excess. Every part adds value, front-loaded with intent.

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?

No output schema, but description outlines return contents (divergence type, window data, interpretation). Missing exact output structure, but sufficient for a specialized indicator tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining that lookback splits into two equal halves for left/right windows, which is not in schema. This enhances understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it detects RSI divergence by comparing price and RSI trends. It differentiates between bearish top divergence and bullish bottom divergence, and specifies return contents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like indicator_rsi or indicator_divergence_direct.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling indicators (e.g., indicator_macd, indicator_stochastic), lacking context on selection criteria is a significant gap.

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