get_willr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the threshold levels but does not disclose behavioral aspects like read-only nature, data source, or whether the indicator uses historical data. The parameter 'limit' implies pagination or count control, but that is not described.

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 concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the indicator identity and key thresholds. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that is not documented in the description, this is incomplete. The description does not explain how parameters affect the output or what the return structure looks like, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter information beyond the thresholds. The four parameters (symbol, limit, period, interval) are not explained; the agent must infer meaning from names alone, which may be ambiguous (e.g., interval could mean time frame or step).

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 identifies the tool as a Williams %R momentum oscillator and provides key thresholds (>-20 overbought, <-80 oversold). This distinguishes it from sibling indicators like RSI or Stochastics, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' or 'returns'.

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 given on when to use Williams %R compared to other momentum oscillators such as get_rsi or get_stochastic. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent without selection advice.

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