indicator_pvo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool calculates an indicator, but does not mention data fetching behavior, side effects, or limitations. The description focuses on the indicator's formula rather than tool execution details, leaving behavioral traits undefined.

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 immediately states the action and object, then provides a concise definition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no wasted or repetitive content.

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 explains what PVO calculates but does not describe the output format or that the tool fetches historical OHLCV data based on symbol/timeframe. Without an output schema, this missing context leaves some ambiguity about what the tool returns, though the indicator's nature is straightforward.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that PVO uses EMAs, which clarifies the meaning of fastPeriod, slowPeriod, and signalPeriod (EMA periods) beyond the generic schema descriptions. This enrichment justifies a 4.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Percentage Volume Oscillator'), and adds a precise definition ('measures volume momentum as percentage difference between EMAs'). This distinguishes it from other indicator tools by naming the unique PVO calculation.

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 measuring volume momentum but does not explicitly state when to use PVO over other indicators like MACD or PPO, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. The definition provides some implied context but lacks direct guidance.

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