indicator_aroon

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only explains the indicator's purpose ('identifies trend changes and strength') without covering what the output looks like (e.g., Aroon Up and Down series), data requirements, or edge cases. This is a significant gap for a calculation tool that returns values.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Calculate') and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Despite having a clear schema, the description is incomplete for an indicator tool: it doesn't explain return values (e.g., Aroon Up/Down series), how the indicator is presented, or any usage context. Without an output schema, the agent is left without key information to interpret the result.

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%, with each parameter (symbol, timeframe, period, limit) having a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Aroon Indicator'), and adds context about what it identifies ('trend changes and strength using high/low price extremes'). This distinguishes it from other technical indicators by name, and the 'indicator' prefix differentiates it from sibling 'strategy_aroon'.

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 this tool versus alternatives like strategy_aroon or other indicators (e.g., indicator_rsi for momentum). The description implies it's for technical analysis but provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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