indicator_stoch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only adds the data point requirement; it does not mention return type, side effects, or interpretation of results. This leaves significant behavioral information undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences efficiently convey the tool's identity and a key requirement. No wasted words, but slightly more context could be added without harming 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?

Despite good parameter documentation, the description lacks crucial information about output (e.g., whether it returns K and D lines, or an object), and does not explain typical usage context. The tool is complex with 4 parameters, yet the description is minimal.

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 descriptive parameter names and defaults (n: %K period, m: %K smoothing, p: %D smoothing). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is already clear. Baseline score 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 clearly states it is a Stochastic Oscillator, a specific technical indicator, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like indicator_rsi, indicator_macd, etc. However, it does not elaborate on the exact computation or output format.

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 provides a prerequisite: requires at least n+m data points. No explicit when-to-use or comparisons with alternatives are given, but the requirement is a helpful guideline.

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