minus_di

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('fetch') without detailing output format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or data sources. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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 minus directional indicator', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits necessary details.

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, 3 required, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', or 'datatype', failing 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 minus directional indicator' restates the tool name 'minus_di' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('fetch') and a resource ('minus directional indicator'), but lacks specificity about what this indicator is or its context, failing to distinguish it from many sibling tools that also fetch financial/technical indicators.

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 numerous sibling tools for technical indicators (e.g., 'plus_di', 'adx', 'rsi'), there is no indication of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.

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