indicator_ppo

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only gives a mathematical definition of PPO, but does not indicate that it fetches OHLCV data, what parameters control the calculation in practice, or what the output format looks like. There is no statement about side effects or data handling.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's primary action and the underlying concept. Every word contributes value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is too terse for a tool with six parameters and no output schema. It lacks details about return values, usage context, or how the PPO calculation is applied to market data. Given the long list of sibling indicator tools, more contextual information is needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, each with clear defaults and meanings. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics, but the schema is sufficient to understand them, so a baseline score 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 'Calculate the Percentage Price Oscillator (PPO)' which is a specific verb and resource. It further explains the formula as 'shows the relationship between two EMAs as a percentage', offering some distinction from similar indicators like APO or MACD. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use PPO versus alternatives like indicator_apo or indicator_macd. It simply describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and general technical analysis knowledge.

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