MCP Avantage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description offers no information on what the tool does (e.g., calculates a technical indicator), its output format, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. It fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 description is a single phrase that is overly concise to the point of under-specification. It does not front-load essential information and lacks any structure, failing to provide meaningful content beyond the tool name.

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 completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or output, leaving significant gaps in understanding for 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 6 parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation.

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 'Weighted Moving Average (WMA)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what the tool does. It does not mention the action (e.g., 'calculate' or 'retrieve') or the resource (e.g., 'stock data'), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'technicalIndicators_sma' or 'technicalIndicators_ema', which are also moving average 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other technical indicators like SMA or EMA), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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