indicator_bbw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the formula, but does not disclose that the tool fetches OHLCV data via symbol/timeframe parameters, nor what the return structure looks like (e.g., a time series of BBW values). This leaves key behavioral traits hidden.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Calculate' and provides a clear definition. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the conceptual definition but omits usage guidance, return format, and data-fetching behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps, making it 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage, with descriptions for all five parameters including default values. The description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable under the baseline but does not enhance understanding of how limit, period, or stdDev affect the calculation.

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 Bollinger Bands Width and defines it as the distance between upper and lower Bollinger Bands. This distinguishes it from sibling indicator_bollinger_bands, which focuses on the bands themselves.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this indicator versus alternatives like indicator_bollinger_bands or other volatility indicators. Usage is only implied by the tool name and definition, giving it a clear but implicit context.

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