indicator_true_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core calculation formula, which is essential behavior. However, it does not mention data source specifics, how previous close is derived, edge cases for missing data, or the response format. This is adequate 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and provides the formula. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 is simple: 3 params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema. The description fully explains what is calculated but does not describe the output format or return value. Given the lack of an output schema, this is a notable gap, though the formula disclosure mitigates it.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for symbol, limit, and timeframe. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond stating the calculation, 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 opens with a specific verb 'Calculate' and clearly identifies the resource: 'True Range (TR)'. It also defines the formula precisely ('greatest of current high-low, high-previous close, or low-previous close'), which distinguishes it from other indicator tools in the sibling list like indicator_atr or indicator_sma.

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?

Usage guidance is implied: use this when you need the True Range value. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., indicator_atr for average true range) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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