indicator_ulcer_index

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

The description only defines the concept of the Ulcer Index, not the tool's behavior. It doesn't disclose return format, data fetching, side effects, or any operational details. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility and falls short.

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: 'Calculate the Ulcer Index (UI) - measures downside risk and volatility.' Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a moderate-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a single numeric value or a series), how the indicator is computed, or any operational context. An agent would need to infer too much from the name and schema alone.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already adequately explains each parameter.

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 a specific action ('Calculate') and resource ('Ulcer Index (UI)'), distinguishing it from sibling indicator tools by naming the exact indicator. However, it doesn't provide additional contextual details like data source or use case, so a slight deduction from the top score.

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 given on when to use this tool versus other indicators or risk metrics. The phrase 'measures downside risk and volatility' offers an implicit hint, but there's no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool references.

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