momentum

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

With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint already present, the description adds useful behavioral context: price data is handled automatically, tickers are required, and multiple tickers are supported via comma separation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the description includes a long list of 22 indicator names that duplicates the indicator enum in the input schema. The list adds bulk without much new information, making the description less concise than it could be.

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's complexity (27 parameters) and rich schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but does not clarify which parameters apply to which indicators or how to pick among the many indicator options. The output schema and annotations help, but the description leaves important selection guidance to the agent.

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 carries most parameter meaning. The description adds that tickers is effectively required and that defaults differ by indicator, but many parameters still rely on generic schema descriptions like 'Value for window_1' without further explanation.

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 identifies the tool as providing momentum technical indicators (RSI, MACD, Stochastic Oscillator, etc.) and is distinct from categories like volatility, breadth, and performance. It lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'returns,' but the scope and examples make the purpose clear.

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?

It provides clear usage context: apply momentum indicators to price data automatically, no need to fetch prices first, and tickers must be supplied as 'AAPL' or comma-separated values. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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