indicator_vortex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses little about behavior beyond the basic calculation: it doesn't mention output format, data fetching, handling of insufficient data, or that it is a read-only operation. The phrase 'using true range' gives a technical detail about the calculation, but not about the tool's runtime behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action 'Calculate' and the resource 'Vortex Indicator'. It is concise, with no redundant phrasing, and effectively communicates the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and under what conditions it can be used. It only gives a one-line summary, omitting the output values (e.g., VI+, VI-), data requirements, and any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with four parameters and no structured output documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (limit, period, symbol, timeframe). The description does not add additional meaning to any parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 Vortex Indicator, with a specific verb 'Calculate' and a specific resource. It further explains the indicator's purpose—identifies trend direction and strength using true range—which distinguishes it from other indicator tools in the sibling list.

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?

The description implies usage for trend analysis by mentioning 'identifies trend direction and strength', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as OHLCV data availability.

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