get_obv

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 involves comparing OBV with a signal line (EMA) and returns trend direction, but does not elaborate on edge cases, exact computation details, or interpretation of the trend direction. This is moderate transparency.

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 sentences, immediately states the core function (calculates OBV), and then explains the comparison with the signal line. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and key behavior. It mentions the comparison with signal line and the output (trend direction). Minor gaps like exact return format or default signal_period are covered by the schema, so overall it is complete enough for typical use.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the signal line (EMA of OBV), but does not explain parameter-specific behaviors beyond what the schema already provides. It neither harms nor significantly augments parameter semantics.

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 OBV and returns a volume-based trend direction by comparing with a signal line (EMA of OBV). It names a specific indicator and its purpose, distinguishing it from sibling indicators like get_volume_ma or get_ema.

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 implies use for volume-based trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_volume_ma or get_macd. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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