MCP Avantage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about what the tool actually does - whether it calculates, retrieves, or analyzes data; what the output format is; whether it's a read-only operation; or any rate limits or authentication requirements. It's completely opaque.

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 (just 4 words), this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't earn their place by adding value.

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 technical indicator tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what +DM is, what it calculates, what the output contains, or how to interpret results. The agent would have no idea what this tool actually does beyond its name.

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 all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds zero semantic information about what the parameters mean in the context of +DM calculation. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter explanation in the description.

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 Movement (+DM)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what the tool does. It provides no verb or action, doesn't specify what resource it operates on, and fails to distinguish this technical indicator from its many sibling tools in the technicalIndicators_* family.

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. With numerous sibling technical indicators available (like minusDM, plusDI, adx, etc.), there's no indication of what +DM measures, what market conditions it's useful for, or how it differs from related indicators.

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