indicator_bollinger_bands

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description only states what it calculates and does not disclose output format, data requirements, or any calculation nuances. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to understand what to expect from the tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It gets straight to the point while conveying the core concept.

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 is simple with a well-documented schema, but there is no output schema and no description of return values. The description also fails to explain how this tool relates to other Bollinger Band components (e.g., width, strategy) or what the result structure looks like, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds some conceptual clarity (Bollinger Bands relate to volatility and an SMA) but does not go beyond the schema for individual parameter meanings or relationships.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') with a clear resource ('Bollinger Bands') and explicitly explains what it shows (price volatility with upper/lower bands around an SMA). This clearly distinguishes it from other indicator tools like indicator_sma or indicator_bbw.

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 implies a use case (assessing price volatility) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. With many sibling indicator and strategy tools, more explicit differentiation would be beneficial.

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