indicator_acceleration_bands

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose return format, side effects, or data requirements (e.g., uses OHLCV). Only states it 'shows potential breakout zones', which is interpretive, not behavioral.

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?

One sentence, concise, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler.

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 simple indicator tool, it covers purpose and params, but lacks usage guidance and output description. Given no annotations or output schema, more detail would be helpful but it's minimally viable.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3. Description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only references volatility which is conceptual.

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 states 'Calculate the Acceleration Bands (AB)' with a specific verb and resource, and adds functional context 'shows potential breakout zones based on volatility'. This distinguishes it from other indicator_* siblings.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention relationship to strategy_acceleration_bands or other band indicators, and lacks any context about market conditions or use cases.

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