indicator_chaikin_oscillator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the calculation purpose and does not mention input data requirements, return format, or any side effects or limitations. Since it's a calculation tool, the lack of detail about output or data source leaves significant ambiguity.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite sparse. It does not explain how fastPeriod and slowPeriod interact, what the output looks like (e.g., a series of values), or that it requires OHLCV data. This is incomplete for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 all five parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Chaikin Oscillator (CMO)'), and provides a brief explanation of what it measures ('accumulation/distribution momentum'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling indicator tools.

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 for technical analysis of accumulation/distribution momentum, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other indicators or any exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or which scenarios favor alternative tools.

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