get_stochastic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It clearly states the return is 'Stochastic values with interpretation' and outlines the scale (0-100). However, it does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or any side effects. Since the tool is read-only, this is adequate but leaves room for more detail.

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 a clear first sentence, a paragraph on interpretation, and an Args/Returns section. It is concise but includes necessary details. Minor redundancy with defaults already in schema does not harm conciseness significantly.

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 tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the indicator's purpose, parameter examples, and return value interpretation. It does not elaborate on error handling or data source freshness, but it is sufficient for an indicator tool with standard usage. The output schema existence reduces the need for extensive return description.

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 fully compensates by listing each parameter with examples (e.g., 'BTCUSDT', '1h'), defaults, and interpretation (fastk_period, slowk_period). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values, making the tool easy to use correctly.

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 explicitly states 'Get Stochastic Oscillator for a cryptocurrency' with a clear verb and resource. It also explains the indicator's purpose (momentum on a scale of 0-100), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rsi or get_macd. The description provides specific interpretation thresholds, making it easy to identify.

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 explains when to interpret the oscillator (oversold/overbought) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative indicators like RSI or StochRSI. No exclusions or context for when not to use this tool are provided. Usage is implied by the indicator's common application.

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