indicator_williams_r

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only reveals the data requirement but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a single value or array), how it handles edge cases, or any side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately identifies the indicator. It could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness, but it is not verbose.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's nature as a calculation, the description should explain the return value (e.g., percentage values, array length). It only mentions a prerequisite, leaving the output structure unclear.

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?

The description adds a critical constraint ('at least interval data points') beyond the schema descriptions ('HLC array' and 'calculation period'). This clarifies a runtime requirement not evident from the schema alone, adding practical value.

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 names the specific indicator (Williams %R) and states a requirement (minimum data points). It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from sibling indicators by using the precise name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other oscillators (e.g., RSI, Stoch). The only usage hint is the prerequisite that the candle array must have at least 'interval' data points, which is more of a constraint than a usage guideline.

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