crypto_get_sma

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the operation (get SMA) and symbol format, but fails to explain how the SMA is computed, what response format to expect, or how parameters like window_size or timespan affect behavior. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a critical usage detail (symbol format). No wasted words, and the format hint is actionable and necessary.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no schema property descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain return values, parameter meanings, defaults' impact, or any edge cases, leaving the agent without the information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a specific format for the symbol parameter, which is useful, but it does not explain any of the other 7 parameters (limit, order, adjusted, timespan, timestamp, series_type, window_size). Most parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 clearly states the tool computes a Simple Moving Average for a crypto pair, with a specific symbol format (X:BTCUSD). This distinguishes it from other SMA tools for forex, stocks, and options, and from crypto EMA/RSI tools.

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 gives a format hint for the symbol parameter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling alternatives. There is no mention of asset-class suitability, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent receives little help in selecting this tool.

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