get_bollinger_bands

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool 'calculates' and 'returns' specific values, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., sufficient price history), error behavior, or side effects. Since the operation appears read-only, the lack of any explicit safety or data-requirement note is a notable omission.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the return values. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant information. It is well-structured and easily parsed.

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 has no output schema, so the description is responsible for explaining return values. It lists the components (SMA, bands, %B, bandwidth) but does not describe their structure or format. Also, the absence of usage guidance relative to siblings and the lack of behavioral details make the description only partially complete. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), a score of 3 reflects the clear gaps while acknowledging the output composition is at least mentioned.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including defaults and enums. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves; it only describes the outputs. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states that the tool calculates Bollinger Bands for a stock (종목의 볼린저 밴드를 계산합니다) and lists specific return values (SMA, upper/lower bands, %B, bandwidth). This clearly identifies the resource and the metrics, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling indicator tools like RSI or MACD, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 the many sibling technical indicator tools (e.g., get_rsi, get_macd, get_ichimoku). The description only explains what it does, leaving the agent to infer any usage context. This is a clear gap given the crowded space of indicator tools.

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