get_parabolic_sar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool calculates and returns three specific outputs, which is useful, but it omits details such as data source, potential side effects, or any limitations. Since this is a read-only calculation, the lack of mutation warnings is less critical, but the description could be more explicit about its behavior.

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 sentences in Korean, front-loaded with the action and followed by the output specifics. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 indicator calculator, the description covers the core purpose and output shape. However, it lacks alternatives guidance and does not clarify the return format beyond high-level concepts, which leaves minor gaps for an agent selecting among many similar tools. It is adequate but not enriched.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameter descriptions exist in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is sufficient, resulting in the baseline score.

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 a specific verb '계산합니다' (calculates) with a clear resource, 'Parabolic SAR', and explicitly lists the output concepts (trend direction, reversal signal, trailing stop baseline). This clearly differentiates it from sibling indicator tools like get_rsi or get_macd, which focus on different indicators.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to the many sibling indicator tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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