moving_average

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Discloses the tool calculates and returns moving averages, which is non-destructive. However, it does not mention any limitations, prerequisites, or side effects beyond the basic calculation.

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 sentences, no redundancy. First sentence gives the core action, second adds key details. Front-loaded with primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. For a simple calculation tool, it is adequately complete. Could mention data source or error handling but not critical.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for from, to, periods. Description adds value by explaining output includes current rate and distance from each MA, and that periods can be custom. This goes beyond the schema which only lists names and types.

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?

Description states 'Calculate simple moving averages (SMA) for a currency pair' with specific outputs (20, 50, 200-day SMAs or custom period, current rate, distance). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like convert or correlation_analysis.

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?

Says 'useful for trend assessment,' implying context but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. Lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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