options_get_ema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the output type (EMA) but does not disclose behavior such as time series support, default values (window_size=50, timespan='day'), or response format. It adds minimal context beyond the 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 a single focused sentence with no superfluous words. However, given the complexity of the tool, it might be too terse, but conciseness is not penalized for lack of detail.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify an option contract or what response to expect, making it inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 adds no meaning for any of the 8 parameters. It does not explain the role of symbol, window_size, timespan, series_type, or timestamp, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct a correct call.

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 the action (Get) and the specific resource (Exponential Moving Average) for an option contract. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like options_get_sma (Simple Moving Average) and cross-asset EMA tools (stocks_get_ema, 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as options_get_sma or options_get_rsi. There is no mention of suitable use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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