get_adosc

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as data source, rate limits, or how the momentum is calculated (e.g., formula, default periods). The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence, which is efficient, but it is too terse for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions. It front-loads the indicator name but omits critical details, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 complexity of a technical indicator with 5 parameters and an output schema (unseen), the description is extremely incomplete. It provides no information on output structure, parameter ranges, or how this indicator differs from siblings, leaving the agent with inadequate context to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description adds no semantic information about any parameter. The agent has no explanation of what 'fast', 'slow', 'limit', 'symbol', or 'interval' mean in context of the A/D Oscillator.

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 identifies the tool as the Chaikin A/D Oscillator, a specific technical indicator measuring momentum of the Accumulation/Distribution line. This is a precise verb-resource pair. However, it does not distinguish this oscillator from other similar oscillators among sibling tools (e.g., get_apo, get_ultosc).

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 the many sibling indicators (e.g., get_ad, get_macd). The description only names the indicator without any context of market conditions or analysis scenarios where this oscillator is preferred.

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