indicator_mstd

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the rolling period and volatility calculation but does not explain how data is fetched, what the output contains, or any prerequisites or side effects. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral details unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not explain how the limit and period parameters interact, what the returned data format is, or any potential errors. This is a basic indicator tool, but more context is needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the context of a 'rolling period' which aligns with the period parameter, but does not clarify the relationship between period and limit or provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 Moving Standard Deviation and identifies it as a volatility measure over a rolling period. It uses a specific verb and resource, and while it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling indicators, the unique MSTD name distinguishes it.

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 this tool versus alternatives like ATR or Bollinger Bands, which also measure volatility. The description only defines what the indicator does, without providing context on suitable scenarios or exclusions.

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