crypto_get_ema

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. It only implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, data range, calculation specifics, default window size, or limitations. No concrete contexts are added beyond the basic definition.

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 concise in the sense of being a single sentence, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions. It lacks necessary details, making it under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The one-liner does not earn its place for such a complex tool.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, the expected output, usage scenarios, or any relevant context. The description is inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool beyond recognizing its basic function.

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 has 8 parameters and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for missing parameter meaning. It only vaguely maps 'crypto pair' to the 'symbol' parameter and explains none of the other parameters (limit, order, adjusted, timespan, timestamp, series_type, window_size). The description adds almost no value over the raw schema.

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 states 'Get Exponential Moving Average for a crypto pair' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Exponential Moving Average' for 'crypto pair'). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like crypto_get_sma, crypto_get_macd, stocks_get_ema, and forex_get_ema.

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 use cases, exclusions, or conditions under which EMA is preferred over SMA or RSI, nor does it reference any sibling tools. There is no implied usage context beyond the tool's name.

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