kama

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

The description provides no behavioral information beyond the basic purpose. With no annotations provided, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data sources it uses, any rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a financial data tool with 6 parameters, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 maximally concise with just 4 words that directly state the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's arguably too brief given the complexity of the tool, it's perfectly structured and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 (6 parameters, financial calculations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the Kaufman adaptive moving average is, how it differs from other moving averages, what the parameters mean, what data it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. For users unfamiliar with this specific technical indicator, the description provides insufficient context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meaning. However, it provides no information about any parameters - not explaining what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', 'series_type', or 'datatype' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the calculation. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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 verb ('fetch') and resource ('Kaufman adaptive moving average'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (e.g., sma, ema, dema, trima, wma) which also fetch moving averages, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this particular moving average type.

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 including many other technical indicators (sma, ema, rsi, macd, etc.), there's no indication of what makes the Kaufman adaptive moving average unique or when it's preferred over other moving averages or indicators.

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