indicator_since_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It mentions tracking 'significant price change' but does not define 'significant,' detail the data-fetching behavior, or explain edge cases (e.g., no significant change). The output format is also undisclosed, making the tool's runtime behavior opaque.

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 purpose directly with no filler words. It earns its place by conveying the core function efficiently, matching the conciseness of high-scoring examples.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining return values and broader context. It only hints at the output ('tracks the time') without specifying units, format, or whether it returns a single value or series. The description is too thin for a tool with 3 parameters and a nontrivial calculation.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present for symbol, limit, and timeframe. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it does not go beyond the baseline expected from 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 'Since Change' indicator, with a brief explanation of what it tracks ('time since the last significant price change'). It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling indicator 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other indicators or strategies. There is no mention of suitable market conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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