get_obv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a definition and purpose, without revealing that the tool calculates a cumulative volume indicator based on price movements, that it depends on historical data, or that it may have limitations like requiring a minimum number of data points. No behavioral traits beyond the definition are disclosed.

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 concise but severely under-informative. It does not front-load the most critical information (e.g., required parameter, output format). The brevity sacrifices completeness, making it insufficient for effective tool selection.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 3 parameters, the description provides no context about return values, parameter effects, or tool behavior. For a technical indicator, this is highly incomplete—the agent cannot understand what OBV calculates, how to interpret results, or how to use parameters like limit and interval 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (symbol, limit, interval). The agent receives no guidance on how to use these parameters, what formats they expect, or how they affect results. This is a critical gap.

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 identifies the resource as 'On Balance Volume' and states its purpose as 'cumulative volume, confirms price trends'. However, it is somewhat tautological (restates the name) and does not clearly differentiate from sibling volume indicators like get_ad or get_mfi, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'confirms price trends' implies a use case, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools such as get_ad, get_adosc, or get_mfi, which are also volume-related.

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