get_volatility_metrics

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that ATR uses Wilder's method (RMA-based, period=14, matching TradingView/MT4) and mentions annualization and rolling window recommendations. However, it lacks details on destructive behavior, authorization, rate limits, or error handling.

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 paragraph of moderate length. It begins with a title-like bracket and covers purpose, methods, and a tip. While not verbose, it lacks clear structure (e.g., bullet points) and could be more concise by removing redundant mentions of volatility.

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 9 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains what is computed but fails to describe parameter semantics, return format, or how to interpret results, which is essential for correct invocation.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters (e.g., `pair`, `type`, `view`, `limit`, `windows`). Despite having 9 parameters with defaults and enums, the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 begins with '[Volatility / ATR / RV]' and states it calculates volatility indicators, listing specific methods (RV, ATR, Parkinson, Garman-Klass, Rogers-Satchell). The verb '算出' (calculate) is clear, and the resource is volatility metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on volatility, but the technical jargon may reduce clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is a tip for rolling windows ('ローリングではボラ変化を RV / Parkinson で追跡してください') but no exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools like `analyze_bb_snapshot` or `analyze_indicators`.

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