stocks_get_macd

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 disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not explain what is returned (e.g., timestamped MACD values), how the calculation works (e.g., default windows 12/26/9), or any potential side effects or limitations. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no auxiliary docs). It sacrifices valuable information for brevity. This is not effective conciseness but rather under-specification, similar to the 'Process' example.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It is a complex financial indicator with configurable windows, timespans, and series types. The one-line description is completely inadequate to inform an agent about inputs, outputs, or behavior. There is no context about the return format, defaults, or calculation logic.

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 description adds no meaning to the 10 parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'stock symbol,' implicitly mapping to the required 'symbol' parameter, but it does not explain any of the other parameters (limit, order, adjusted, timespan, timestamp, series_type, long_window_size, short_window_size, signal_window_size). With no guidance, the agent cannot correctly set these parameters for typical use cases.

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 a stock symbol' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (MACD) and the scope (stock symbol). This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other asset classes (e.g., forex_get_macd, crypto_get_macd) and other indicators (e.g., stocks_get_rsi, stocks_get_ema). It is both specific and non-tautological.

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. The description does not mention that it is for stock MACD only, nor does it suggest using forex_get_macd or crypto_get_macd for other asset classes. No exclusions or contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name.

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