indicator_williams_r

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions calculation and general purpose, but fails to explain the return format, how OHLCV data is fetched, the effect of period/limit, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety annotations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it highly 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 tool is a moderately complex calculation with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides only the basic definition, lacking usage context, return value expectations, or differentiation from numerous sibling indicator tools. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool.

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% with clear descriptions for all parameters (limit, period, symbol, timeframe). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 Williams %R (WILLR) and identifies it as a momentum indicator for overbought/oversold levels. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling tools like indicator_rsi, indicator_stochastic, or strategy_williams_r.

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 versus alternative indicators or strategies. It implies use for overbought/oversold analysis but offers no context on prerequisites, data requirements, 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.