indicator_atr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what ATR measures conceptually but does not explain how the tool behaves: what data it fetches, what it returns, or any side effects. The description does not contradict any annotations, but it offers minimal behavioral insight beyond a textbook definition.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose (calculate ATR) and adds a brief explanation. It is not verbose and every word earns its place. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification, which is a completeness concern rather than a conciseness issue.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the tool requires historical OHLCV data, what the output format looks like, or how the parameters (e.g., timeframe, limit) shape the result. The one-line description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 100% description coverage for all four parameters (limit, period, symbol, timeframe), so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds a general sense of 'true range' but does not clarify how parameters like period or limit affect the ATR calculation. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 Average True Range (ATR) and explains that it measures market volatility. This is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling indicator tools such as indicator_ema or indicator_rsi. The definition is helpful but lacks direct differentiation.

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 this tool versus other indicators or how it fits into a workflow. The description merely defines ATR and does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. With many sibling indicator tools, this absence of usage context is a notable gap.

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