get_atr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of Wilder smoothing, which is an algorithmic detail. However, it does not mention whether the tool returns a single value or a series, nor any required permissions or side effects. For a pure calculation tool, the lack of side effects is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and method, then a practical application. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description conveys essential context: what is calculated, how, and why. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention the format or shape of the returned data, which is a minor gap for a technical indicator 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., symbol format, interval options, period default). It reinforces that the tool calculates ATR but does not elaborate on parameter behavior.

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 'Calculates the ATR (Average True Range) of a stock using Wilder smoothing', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling indicator tools by explicitly naming the calculation method and its purpose (volatility measurement, position sizing, and stop-loss distance).

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 provides clear usage context by stating it is used for volatility measurement, position sizing, and setting stop-loss distances. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling indicators like RSI or MACD, but the practical use cases are enough to guide an agent on when to select this tool.

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