MCP Avantage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it makes external API calls, what the response format might be, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is purely a label with zero behavioral information, which is inadequate for a tool that presumably calculates financial indicators.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information about the tool's function or usage. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimal content doesn't fulfill the description's purpose of helping an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly.

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 complexity of financial technical indicators and the complete lack of annotations and output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what the Plus Directional Indicator is, what it measures, what the output represents, or how to interpret results. For a tool with 5 parameters that calculates a specialized financial metric, this description provides essentially no contextual information to guide proper usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what the Plus Directional Indicator calculation requires, how parameters like 'time_period' affect the indicator, or what the 'month' parameter does for intraday intervals. Since the schema does all the parameter documentation work, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Plus Directional Indicator (+DI)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It identifies the technical indicator but doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'calculates,' 'retrieves,' 'computes') or what resource it operates on. While it distinguishes this from non-technical indicator siblings, it doesn't differentiate from similar technical indicator tools like 'technicalIndicators_minusDI' or 'technicalIndicators_dx' which are clearly related directional movement indicators.

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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of what the Plus Directional Indicator measures, its typical applications in technical analysis, or when it would be preferred over other technical indicators. With numerous sibling tools including 'technicalIndicators_minusDI' and 'technicalIndicators_dx' (Directional Movement Index), the lack of any comparative context leaves the agent with no basis for selection.

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