macdext

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data source it queries, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the output takes. The description is completely silent on all behavioral aspects beyond the vague action of 'fetching' something.

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 (4 words) but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. While it's front-loaded with the core action, every word fails to earn its place by adding meaningful information. The structure is minimal but not helpful.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool actually does, how to use it, what it returns, or when to choose it over alternatives. The description fails to provide the minimal information needed for an agent to understand and use this tool 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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', or any of the period/type parameters mean, nor does it provide context about valid values or how they interact. The description fails completely to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 next' restates the tool name 'macdext' (which appears to be a contraction of MACD extension) without adding meaningful clarification. It uses the vague verb 'fetch' and doesn't specify what resource is being retrieved or what 'next' refers to. While it hints at financial/technical analysis context, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from its many siblings in the same domain.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 11 sibling tools that appear to be financial/technical indicators (macd, sma, ema, rsi, etc.), the agent has no information about when macdext is appropriate versus other MACD-related tools or other technical 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.