indicator_keltner_channel

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the calculation concept but does not describe the output format (e.g., whether bands are returned as separate values), how missing data is handled, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral 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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action (calculate) and resource. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only a brief technical definition. It does not explain the return value structure, typical use cases, or caveats, leaving the context incomplete for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters beyond the technical formula reference, but it does not need to compensate since the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 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 calculates the Keltner Channel (KC), with a specific formula reference ('volatility bands around an EMA using ATR'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling indicator tools like Bollinger Bands or ATR alone.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use when Keltner Channel values are needed, but it does not discuss suitable market conditions, data requirements, or contrasting with similar indicators like Bollinger Bands.

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