cmo

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

The description provides zero behavioral information beyond the basic purpose. With no annotations provided, the agent doesn't know if this is a read-only operation, whether it has rate limits, what data source it uses, what format the output takes, or any error conditions. For a financial data tool with 5 parameters, this is critically insufficient.

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 at just 4 words, front-loading the essential purpose with zero wasted words. While it's under-specified, what's there is perfectly structured and efficient.

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 description is completely inadequate given the context. This is a financial data tool with 5 parameters (3 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 100+ sibling tools. The agent needs much more information about what this oscillator measures, how parameters affect it, what data it returns, and when to choose it over alternatives.

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 mentions no parameters at all, while the schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The agent must guess what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', and 'datatype' mean and how they affect the oscillator calculation. This is a major gap for a tool with multiple required parameters.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('chande momentum oscillator'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many sibling technical indicator tools (like 'rsi', 'macd', 'stoch'), which all fetch different financial 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 100+ sibling tools on the server (mostly other technical indicators and financial data tools), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific oscillator over similar tools like 'rsi' or 'mom'.

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