indicator_qstick

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculation logic (open-close differences) but does not disclose whether the tool fetches OHLCV data (despite a 'limit' parameter), the return format, or any side effects. For a tool that likely performs data retrieval and computation, this is a significant gap.

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 is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is concise with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 straightforward indicator calculation tool, the description provides the essential purpose and formula, while the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the return value looks like or how the indicator is represented, leaving some ambiguity. This is acceptable for a simple tool but could be improved.

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%, with all four parameters (symbol, period, limit, timeframe) adequately described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond its explanation of the indicator's formula. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 Qstick Indicator and explains its basis (measuring buying/selling pressure via open-close differences). It specifies the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'Qstick Indicator', making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling indicator tools, but the unique indicator name and formula description provide adequate distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other indicator tools. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen. Since there are many sibling indicator tools (e.g., indicator_rsi, indicator_macd), explicit usage context would be valuable.

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