indicator_stochastic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation logic but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it fetches OHLCV data, or what the return payload looks like. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema is not compensated by the description—there is no mention of return format or how the computed values are structured. Additionally, no usage context (e.g., trend-following vs. mean-reversion) is provided, making the tool less discoverable among the many indicator siblings.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, including defaults and examples. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate'), identifies the exact resource ('Stochastic Oscillator (STOCH)'), and explains the underlying formula ('compares closing price to price range over a period'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling indicator tools like SMA or MACD, and even separates it from strategy_stochastic.

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 over other technical indicators. It does not mention suitable market conditions, alternative indicators, or exclusions—key for a tool with many similar siblings.

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