indicator_projection_oscillator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core calculation and output interpretation, but does not mention how data is fetched, whether it is read-only, any side effects, or the response format. The basic purpose is disclosed, but key behavioral traits are omitted.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a short explanatory phrase. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it highly concise and easily scannable for an AI agent.

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 an indicator calculation tool with well-documented parameters, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no output schema or annotations, it does not explain the return value format, typical value ranges, or how the result should be interpreted, leaving gaps in the complete context an agent might need.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (symbol, limit, period, timeframe), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, effectively leaving the schema to do the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Calculate' and identifies the specific resource 'Projection Oscillator (PO)', followed by an explanatory clause ('shows where price is within a projected trading range') that defines its purpose. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling indicator tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like strategy_projection_oscillator.

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 this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context on suitable use cases. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it should be invoked.

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