indicator_iqr

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose what the output is, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. It is unclear if the calculation is rolling or static, and edge cases are not addressed.

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?

Very concise, single sentence and a fragment. Front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from slightly more detail without losing 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, description should explain return values (single value or array, format). It does not. Interactivity with sibling indicators is not addressed, nor is the role of interval clearly tied to IQR computation.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions ('price array', 'calculation period'), but the description adds minimal value: it only reiterates that interval data points are required. The meaning of 'interval' in IQR context (e.g., rolling window) is not clarified.

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 computes Interquartile Range (IQR) and mentions a data requirement, effectively conveying the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling indicators like util_quartile or util_median, which are related but distinct.

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. The only usage hint is the data point requirement, but no context on appropriate scenarios (e.g., outlier detection, dispersion measurement) or exclusions.

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