detect_macd_cross

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions behavioral aspects like forming detection and past statistics for single pair mode but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or return format. The description lacks thorough transparency for a tool with zero annotations.

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 concise, about 10 lines, with a clear structure using bullet points for screen parameters. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary text. However, it could be slightly more organized by separating mode descriptions explicitly.

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's complexity (11 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description inadequately covers non-screen parameters like lookback, performanceWindows, and minHistogramForForming. While it mentions forming detection and stats, it does not explicitly link them to includeForming and includeStats, leaving an agent potentially underinformed.

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 55%, and the description adds meaningful context for screen parameters (crossType, minHistogramDelta, etc.) by listing them and their purposes. However, other parameters like lookback, historyDays, and performanceWindows are not elaborated, leaving some gaps that the schema partially fills with defaults.

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 detects MACD crosses (golden cross, dead cross) and distinguishes between screening mode (multiple pairs) and single pair deep analysis. It uses specific verbs like 'detect' and 'screening' and resource 'MACD cross', making it distinct from sibling tools that analyze other indicators.

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 explains two usage modes: screening (pair omitted) and single pair (pair specified), with clear parameter directives for each. It provides context on when to use each mode but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for alternative indicators, leaving room for improvement.

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