get_ppo

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, data accessibility, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The agent has no information beyond the tool's existence.

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 but excessively short, omitting essential information. It is not front-loaded with critical details, and every word does not earn its place due to missing context.

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 (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain return values even though an output schema exists, and fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 parameters (fast, slow, limit, interval). It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 it as a 'Percentage Price Oscillator' similar to MACD, giving a basic understanding. However, it does not fully distinguish it from siblings like get_apo or get_macd, and lacks specifics on what the tool computes (e.g., returns a time series).

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 vs. alternatives. The only hint is 'similar to MACD but as percentage', implying it's for percentage-based analysis, but no when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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