indicator_apo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says 'calculate,' implying a safe read-only operation, but does not disclose output format, potential edge cases, or whether it fetches OHLCV data. Minimal behavioral context is added.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, zero filler. Highly efficient while conveying the core purpose.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more. It omits return value details, how OHLCV data is fetched and used, and any limitations. For a 5-parameter tool, this is a clear gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the two EMAs, mapping loosely to fastPeriod and slowPeriod, but it does not substantially clarify parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool calculates the Absolute Price Oscillator (APO) and explains what it measures (difference between two EMAs for trend strength). This is a specific verb+resource with clear meaning, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling indicators like PPO or MACD.

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 over alternatives. Sibling indicators (MACD, PPO, EMA) exist, and the description does not mention any selection criteria or scenarios where APO is preferred.

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