get_adx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the interpretation of ADX values but does not specify output format, data source, limitations (e.g., insufficient data), or any side effects. For a simple calculation tool, 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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action, the second provides interpretation and usage context. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to infer the output (ADX and DI values) and understand its application. It lacks an explicit return format, but the interpretation thresholds suggest the available metrics, making it fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (period, symbol, interval) beyond what the schema already provides, such as default period 14 and interval enums.

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 it calculates the ADX (Average Directional Index) for a stock, using a specific verb ('계산합니다') and resource ('종목의 ADX'). It also provides interpretation thresholds (ADX≥25, +DI>-DI), which distinguishes it from other indicator tools like get_rsi or get_macd.

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 gives a clear context for use: '추세/횡보 판별로 전략 전환에 활용됩니다' (used for trend/ranging discrimination to switch strategies). This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions compared to sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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