ta_slug_ema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format or data structure is, or any constraints like rate limits, data freshness, or potential errors beyond the schema.

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 very concise (one short phrase) but lacks important context. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices completeness; it does not explain what 'Full EMA series' entails or how the parameters affect the computation.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the relationship between parameters (e.g., how 'period' and 'fetchInterval' interact), nor what the return value contains. Users must infer from the tool name and schema alone.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Full EMA series' clearly indicates that the tool computes an Exponential Moving Average series. It is not a tautology and suggests it returns a full time series rather than just a single value, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tool 'ta_slug_ema_latest' that likely returns only the latest 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ta_slug_ema_latest' or 'ta_slug_sma'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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