get_adx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ADX interpretation scale (0-100) and indicates the tool returns ADX values with trend strength interpretation. However, it does not specify data retrieval methods or side effects, though for a computation tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured with separate sections for purpose, interpretation, parameters, and returns. It is relatively concise, though the parameter list could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 existence of an output schema (context signal), the description sufficiently explains the return value concept (ADX values with trend interpretation). All six parameters are covered with examples, and the tool's behavior is adequately explained for its complexity.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool description includes a detailed 'Args' section explaining each parameter, including examples and defaults (e.g., 'symbol: Trading pair symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT)'). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Get ADX (Average Directional Index) for a cryptocurrency,' using a specific verb and resource. It explains what ADX is and its interpretation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dx or get_plus_di, which focus on direction.

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 mentions that ADX measures trend strength (not direction), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dx, get_plus_di, or other trend indicators. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided.

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