calculate_atr

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the usefulness for stop-loss placement, implying a calculation and read-only operation, but it does not confirm safety, required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The description is insufficient for full transparency.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but lacks structure. It front-loads the indicator name but omits any hierarchical or bullet-point organization. It earns its place but could include more key details in the same space.

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?

With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description should provide more context about return values, allowed timeframe options, and examples. It mentions nothing about output format or edge cases, making it incomplete for proper tool invocation.

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 zero description coverage for parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'symbol', 'period', or 'timeframe', nor does it clarify defaults or acceptable values. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding beyond parameter names.

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 calculating the Average True Range (ATR) and suggests a primary use case (stop-loss placement). It distinguishes itself from sibling indicators by naming the specific indicator.

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 ATR versus other indicators like RSI or Bollinger Bands. The description only mentions the stop-loss use case but does not indicate when this tool is preferable or when to avoid it.

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