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. 'Simple Moving Average (SMA)' reveals nothing about what the tool returns (e.g., time series data, single value), whether it makes external API calls, rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. For a financial data tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 (three words), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey essential information about the tool's function and usage. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase doesn't provide enough value to justify its brevity.

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, 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, when to use it, or behavioral characteristics. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured support, the description fails to provide necessary context.

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 'Simple Moving Average (SMA)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., calculate SMA for a given stock symbol) or distinguish it from sibling technical indicators like EMA or WMA. The purpose remains vague beyond the acronym expansion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling technical indicators (e.g., EMA, WMA, BBANDS), there's no indication of when SMA is appropriate versus other moving averages or technical indicators. No context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons is provided.

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