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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say what happens with too few values, whether the output is an array, a scalar, or padded, and doesn't note determinism or edge-case handling. It discloses only a default value.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the parenthetical default could have been placed more cleanly and the 'SMA:' prefix is redundant with the tool name.

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 zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool with three loosely documented parameters (period, values, window) and an ambiguity about period vs window, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the relationship between period and window, the expected input format for values, or the return shape, leaving significant gaps for an agent to encounter at runtime.

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 schema already documents period, values, and window. The description adds one useful piece of meaning the schema does not: that window defaults to 20. It does not clarify period vs window, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face, so it is only baseline-plus.

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?

States a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (Simple Moving Average of a price series), which is clear and unambiguous. However it does not distinguish itself from close technical-analysis siblings like x402-ema, x402-moving-average, x402-moving-sum, or x402-macd, all of which operate on similar inputs.

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 indication of when to use SMA vs EMA vs moving-average, no prerequisite or data-shape guidance. The only usage hint is the stated default window of 20, which is a parameter default, not a selection criterion.

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