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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the input is a series, how the window is applied, what happens with insufficient data, or what the output looks like. This is a pure computation tool with zero behavioral context.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — it fails to convey any usable information.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four indistinguishable string inputs, the description is completely inadequate; an agent cannot determine how to populate data/values/period/window or what result to expect.

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?

The schema lists all four parameters, but their descriptions are template placeholders ("Data to process", "Period to process", "Values to process", "Window to process") that convey no actual semantics, and the tool description adds nothing about "data" vs "values" or the period/window relationship. Despite nominal 100% coverage, no real meaning is added.

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?

"Moving Average: Average of moving" essentially restates the tool name rather than defining the operation; "average of moving" is not a meaningful description of what is computed. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like x402-sma, x402-ema, or x402-moving-sum.

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 guidance at all about when to use this tool versus x402-sma, x402-ema, x402-moving-sum, or x402-moving-std. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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