calculate_atr_position

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states 'ATR-based position sizing' and payment requirement, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only calculation, required permissions, or what happens with the result. Output schema exists but isn't referenced.

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?

Description is very short (8 words), which is concise but at the cost of missing crucial information. It earns a middle score because brevity is valued but not at the expense of clarity.

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 has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of parameters, when to adjust them, or how the output is structured (though output schema exists, the description doesn't guide interpretation).

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 0%, with 7 parameters including 'stop_atr_mult' and 'target_atr_mult' that are not self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter explanations, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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?

Clearly states 'ATR-based position sizing', identifying the verb (calculate) and resource (position size based on ATR). However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'calculate_position_size', which may be a simpler version.

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?

Only mentions 'Paid Fintools MCP required', which is a prerequisite but not guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No explicit context for when to choose this tool over others like 'calculate_position_size'.

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