get_trange

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the calculation requires a previous close price, meaning it needs historical data. There is no information on error handling, rate limits, or required permissions. The formula is given but important behavioral traits are omitted.

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 very short (12 words) and front-loads the core definition. However, it lacks essential details, making it under-informative. Conciseness is achieved but at the expense of completeness.

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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, and an existing output schema, the description should provide more context about what the output contains and any data requirements. It fails to mention that the tool depends on previous close data or how to interpret the results. The description is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (symbol, limit, interval). It does not clarify how they relate to the True Range calculation. This leaves the agent to guess the meaning and constraints of each parameter.

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 defines what True Range is by providing its mathematical formula. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying a unique technical indicator. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool returns a series of True Range values for a given symbol and time interval, which could be inferred but is not directly stated.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_atr or other volatility indicators. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states the formula without contextual usage advice.

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