mfi

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 money flow index' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or involves any side effects. This lack of behavioral context is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured safety hints.

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 with a single phrase 'Fetch money flow index', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but as per the rules, conciseness is scored independently based on efficiency, not completeness.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the money flow index is, how parameters interact, what the tool returns, or any behavioral traits. This inadequacy makes it insufficient for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively in context with sibling tools.

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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. Parameters like 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', and 'datatype' are undocumented in both schema and description. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters semantically unclear and hindering correct invocation.

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 money flow index' states a verb ('fetch') and resource ('money flow index'), but it's vague about what this entails—it doesn't specify if it's a financial indicator, calculation, or data retrieval, and it doesn't distinguish from many sibling tools (e.g., 'rsi', 'cci', 'mfi' is one of many technical indicators). This is a tautology that restates the tool name 'mfi' (Money Flow Index) without adding clarity, scoring low due to lack of specificity and 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 financial indicators (e.g., 'rsi', 'macd', 'adx'), there's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons. This absence of usage instructions makes it misleading for an AI agent to select the correct tool among similar options.

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