get_atr

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool retrieves ATR values and interprets volatility, but doesn't disclose data sourcing, rate limits, or any side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with a clear summary, followed by parameter explanations and return value. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary information.

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?

For a technical indicator tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage context. The output schema handles return format, so no further detail is needed.

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 the description compensates fully. It lists all parameters with example values and formats (e.g., 'BTCUSDT' for symbol, '1m, 5m...' for interval, default 14 for period), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 ATR (Average True Range) for a cryptocurrency' with a specific verb and resource. It explains that ATR measures volatility and differentiates it from sibling indicators like get_sma or get_rsi by focusing on volatility.

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 notes ATR is 'useful for setting stop-losses and position sizing,' providing context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving some ambiguity among many siblings.

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