forex_get_ema

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. It only states the basic operation without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, the data range, or any limitations. The description adds no value beyond the tool's name.

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 one concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the key information. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, but for the little it aims to convey, it is efficient.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to use it correctly. It provides no context about parameters, return values, or edge cases. Even basic operations like 'limit' and 'order' defaults are unexplained.

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% and the description does not mention any parameters. With 8 parameters, the agent gets no explanation of what 'window_size', 'series_type', 'timespan', etc. mean. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 'Get Exponential Moving Average for a forex pair' clearly states the specific action (get), the resource (EMA), and the scope (forex pair). It distinguishes from siblings like forex_get_sma and stocks_get_ema by naming both the indicator type and asset class.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any context where another indicator tool might be more appropriate. The description is purely a statement of function without any usage direction.

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