macd

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. The description only states what the tool fetches without any information about data sources, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a financial data tool with 8 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, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose immediately clear. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the structure itself is optimal for what little information is provided.

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 of a financial indicator calculation with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what MACD is, how the parameters affect the calculation, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects of the tool.

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 8 parameters, the description provides absolutely no information about what any parameter means, their valid values, or how they affect the MACD calculation. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 moving average convergence divergence' clearly states the action (fetch) and the financial indicator (MACD), which is a specific technical analysis tool. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'macdext' (MACD with controllable MA type) or other technical indicators, leaving the differentiation unclear.

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., rsi, bbands, stoch) and even a closely related 'macdext', there's no indication of when MACD is appropriate versus other indicators or what makes this specific implementation unique.

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