indicator_cfo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool calculates an oscillator and predicts price movements, but omits critical details such as whether this is a read-only computation, what input data is required, how results are returned, or any limitations. The description adds minimal value beyond the name itself.

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, front-loaded with the action verb 'Calculate'. It is not verbose and contains no extraneous words. However, the hyphenated second clause is somewhat disjointed and does not add technical precision, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 computational indicator with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the oscillator should be interpreted, what the return value represents, or how it relates to other indicators. Given the large set of sibling indicator tools, this lack of context leaves 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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters having textual descriptions (limit, period, symbol, timeframe). The description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond identifying the indicator, but the schema already provides baseline coverage, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 'Calculate the Chande Forecast Oscillator (CFO)', providing a specific verb, resource, and expansion of the acronym. However, the second clause 'predicts future price movements relative to past trends' is vague and does not differentiate CFO from other predictive indicators like MACD or RSI.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use CFO versus alternative indicators. The description does not mention suitable market conditions, comparison to sibling indicators, or when this calculation would be preferred. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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