midpoint

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 midpoint' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it performs calculations, retrieves historical data, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is completely inadequate.

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 at just two words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the only information provided. Every word technically 'earns its place' since there are only two words total.

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, 4 required), complete lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. A proper description would need to explain what a 'midpoint' is in this context, what the parameters mean, what the tool returns, and how it differs from similar technical analysis tools in the extensive sibling list.

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 and 6 parameters (4 required), the description provides zero information about what any parameter means. 'Fetch midpoint' doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', 'series_type', or 'datatype' represent or how they affect the result. The description fails completely to compensate for the 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 midpoint' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'midpoint' with a generic verb. It doesn't specify what resource is being fetched (financial data? geometric calculation?), what domain this operates in, or how it differs from similar tools like 'midprice' in the sibling list. The purpose remains vague and indistinguishable from related tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple similar technical analysis tools in the sibling list (like 'midprice', 'sma', 'ema'), there's no indication of what makes 'midpoint' unique or when it's the appropriate choice. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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