ema

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 behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch exponential moving average' only states the action without any behavioral details: it doesn't mention data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient phrase: 'Fetch exponential moving average'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately concise for a simple-sounding tool, though the simplicity might mask complexity in parameters.

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 complexity (6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any behavioral context. For a technical indicator tool with multiple inputs, this is insufficient to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description 'Fetch exponential moving average' adds no information about what the parameters (symbol, interval, month, time_period, series_type, datatype) mean, their expected values, or how they affect the calculation. With low coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 'Fetch exponential moving average' clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (exponential moving average), which is a specific technical indicator. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other technical analysis tools in the sibling list (like sma, dema, wma, trima, t3, etc.), which all fetch different types of moving averages or similar indicators. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 many sibling tools for technical indicators (e.g., sma, dema, wma, trima, t3, mama, kama, etc.), there's no indication of when an exponential moving average is preferred over other moving average types or other indicators. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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