MCP Avantage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about what the tool does (e.g., calculates or retrieves TEMA values), its output format, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. This leaves the agent completely uninformed about the tool's behavior.

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 concise with a single phrase, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It fails to front-load essential information (e.g., purpose or action), making it ineffective despite 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 a technical indicator tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for agent use.

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%, providing detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting without compensating for gaps.

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 'Triple Exponential Moving Average (TEMA)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what the tool does. It lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'calculate' or 'retrieve') and doesn't distinguish this technical indicator tool from its many siblings (e.g., sma, ema, dema) beyond the specific indicator name.

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. It doesn't mention the context (e.g., technical analysis for stocks), prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'sma' or 'ema', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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