analyze_ema_snapshot

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: only latest values are returned, and it enumerates the output components (values, alignment, crosses, slope). However, it does not mention whether the operation has any side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits, and it does not describe the return format. The 'latest values only' warning adds useful context but leaves room for behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a warning, with the core function front-loaded. It wastes no words and effectively communicates the essential purpose and a key limitation. The structure is optimal for quick agent comprehension.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return structure, and edge cases. While it does route to prepare_chart_data for charting, this does not compensate for the absence of parameter documentation and output details, leaving an agent uncertain about how to correctly invoke the tool.

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 for parameters. It only mentions the default periods (12/26/50/200) implicitly, but does not explain pair, type, or limit. It does not clarify how limit affects the calculation or how periods are used beyond listing defaults. This is insufficient given the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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's function: returns latest values, alignment, crosses, and slope of EMA with default periods. It explicitly distinguishes itself from prepare_chart_data by noting it only provides latest values, not chart time-series data. This differentiates it from sibling snapshot tools like analyze_bb_snapshot and analyze_ichimoku_snapshot.

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 provides an explicit exclusion: it is not for time-series chart drawing, and directs users to prepare_chart_data for that purpose. This gives a clear alternative. However, it does not elaborate on conditions for choosing this tool over other analyze_* snapshot tools beyond the implicit focus on EMA, so it lacks exhaustive when-to-use guidance.

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