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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the FMP WMA API, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data source specifics, rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. The description reveals no additional context beyond the basic function.

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 long, with the first sentence efficiently stating the core purpose. However, the second sentence about trend analysis and buy/sell signals is generic and adds little value, making it somewhat wasteful. It is concise but not maximally informative.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity (5 parameters) and a full schema, but the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. It does not explain the return format (no output schema) or how to choose parameters, and it does not differentiate from sibling indicators. The schema covers parameters, but the description is incomplete for an agent needing to decide among many similar tools.

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%, with all parameters (symbol, periodLength, timeframe, from, to) having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool calculates the Weighted Moving Average (WMA) for a stock, using a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('WMA for a stock'). This distinguishes it from sibling indicators like getSMA and getEMA. The additional sentence about trend analysis and buy/sell signals adds value.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other technical indicators (e.g., SMA, EMA). The mention of 'analyze trends and identify potential buy or sell signals' is generic and does not differentiate it from siblings. No alternative tools or exclusion criteria are provided.

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