get_vwap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not disclose authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., what happens if no active broker session), or the nature of the returned data (e.g., single value vs time series). This is a significant gap for a tool with broker-dependent 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function and key selection criterion (active or specific broker). There is zero wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain that VWAP may be returned as a time series based on 'from_date', 'to_date', and 'interval', nor does it mention broker session prerequisites. The schema describes parameters but the description should clarify the tool's overall behavior and return structure, which it fails to do.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—'from active or specific broker' aligns with the 'broker' parameter but does not clarify formats or relationships. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 retrieves VWAP for a symbol, with the verb 'Get' and the resource 'VWAP'. It distinguishes itself from sibling indicators like RSI or MACD by explicitly naming VWAP, and adds the broker context ('from active or specific broker'), which sets it apart from generic quote tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when needing VWAP for a symbol, and it explains the broker selection nuance (active vs specific). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is specific enough to infer usage.

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