analyze_sma_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key constraint: only the latest value is returned, not historical data. It also mentions it returns cross detection and alignment state, which hints at the output scope. However, it does not mention response format, potential caching, or any side effects (though likely read-only). The single constraint is useful but not deep.

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 short and front-loaded: the first line states the purpose, and the second line adds a warning and redirect. The warning is placed early to prevent misuse. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though it could be better structured with bullet points, but this is acceptable.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the output categories (latest, cross, alignment) but not their structure or types. It lacks any parameter semantics, so an agent may not know how to form valid requests. The pointer to prepare_chart_data is useful but not enough to fill the gap. The tool is under-specified for its complexity level.

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 parameter understanding. It fails to do so: it does not mention any of the four parameters (pair, type, limit, periods). An agent has no guidance on what these mean or how to set them, especially 'periods' which presumably are SMA lengths. The description adds zero value beyond the schema.

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 it is an SMA numerical snapshot containing the latest value, cross detection, and alignment state (bullish/bearish/mixed). It explicitly names the indicator (SMA) and differentiates from charting tools by emphasizing 'only latest values'. While it does not explicitly contrast with other snapshot siblings like analyze_ema_snapshot, the SMA focus is clear enough for an agent to distinguish.

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 gives a direct exclusion and pointer: '⚠️ 最新値のみ。時系列チャート描画 → prepare_chart_data' (Only latest values. For time-series chart drawing → prepare_chart_data). This explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool (if historical series is needed) and names the alternative. It does not discuss when to prefer this over other snapshot tools, but the name makes that obvious.

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