indicator_vpt

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 explains the calculation concept and implies a read-only computation, but it does not describe output format, data requirements, or edge cases such as missing volume data.

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, efficient sentence that states the key purpose and formula intent. No unnecessary words or duplication of schema details.

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?

For a simple technical-indicator tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, the lack of output schema and absence of return-value details leave gaps about what the agent should expect as a result.

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 parameters are well-documented by the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about 'symbol', 'limit', or 'timeframe' beyond what the schema already states.

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') and names the exact resource ('Volume Price Trend (VPT)'). It also clarifies the indicator's core logic ('relates volume to price change direction'), which distinguishes it from other volume-based indicators like OBV or VWAP.

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 VPT versus alternative indicator tools from the large sibling list. The description does not mention use cases, comparisons, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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