get_aroonosc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only defines the oscillator value but omits behavioral details like data sources, calculation method, error handling, or performance considerations. Limited transparency for a technical indicator.

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?

Extremely concise at two short sentences with no unnecessary verbiage. However, conciseness trades off completeness; the description could include more utility without losing brevity.

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 four parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It covers the core purpose but leaves the agent uninformed about parameter roles, usage context, and return structure.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (symbol, limit, period, interval) or their meaning. The mention of 'AroonUp' and 'AroonDown' hints at period dependency but provides no concrete guidance.

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 returning the Aroon Oscillator, defined as the difference between AroonUp and AroonDown with a bullish indication when >0. It names the specific indicator but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_aroon or get_oscillator-based indicators.

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 (e.g., other oscillators). No context about market conditions, timeframes, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_apo or get_ppo.

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