indicator_chandelier_exit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It explains the underlying concept (CE is an ATR-based trailing stop) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what inputs are required beyond the schema, how it handles insufficient data, or what the output looks like. The 'Calculate' verb hints at a non-mutating operation, but this is not explicit.

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 primary verb and noun ('Calculate the Chandelier Exit') and immediately adds context. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no redundant information.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior. It does not explain the return value format, how the `limit` and `timeframe` parameters affect the calculation, or any edge cases. The basic purpose is clear, but substantial gaps remain.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds a small amount of context by mentioning 'ATR multiplier' implicitly through 'based on ATR', but it does not clarify parameter interactions or provide examples beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 'Calculate the Chandelier Exit (CE)' and expands on its purpose as a 'trailing stop-loss based on ATR for trend following'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the many sibling indicator tools, which all use similar 'Calculate' verbs but target different indicators.

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 usage for trend following with a trailing stop-loss, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternative indicators or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools like indicator_atr and strategy_macd may serve different purposes, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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