options_get_macd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool's function. It fails to mention time series handling, configurable windows, default behavior, or response format, offering no behavioral insight 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 sentence with no redundant words, but its extreme brevity lacks necessary substance. For a tool with 10 parameters, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Without annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the one-line description is completely inadequate. It does not explain when to use the tool, what data it returns, or how it fits with sibling indicators, leaving critical gaps for an 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 schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain the meaning of short_window_size, long_window_size, signal_window_size, or other parameters, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 MACD for an option contract' uses a clear verb and resource, and explicitly narrows the scope to option contracts, which distinguishes it from MACD tools for stocks, forex, or crypto. However, it does not provide differentiation from sibling options indicators like SMA, EMA, or RSI.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternative indicator tools, nor any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria.

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