t3

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the data returns, whether it's real-time or historical, error conditions, or any side effects. For a financial data tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While it's arguably too brief for a tool with 6 parameters and complex financial context, as a standalone statement it achieves maximum efficiency with no structural issues.

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 (financial technical indicator with 6 parameters), zero annotation coverage, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, parameter constraints, or when to use it versus similar indicators. For a tool in a crowded namespace of 100+ financial tools, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning none of the 6 parameters have any documentation in the schema. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', 'series_type', or 'datatype' mean, their expected formats, or valid values. With 4 required parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about how to properly invoke the tool.

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 triple exponential moving average' clearly states the action (fetch) and the specific technical indicator (triple exponential moving average), which is a specific financial metric. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools that also fetch various technical indicators (like ema, dema, trima, etc.), leaving the agent to guess when this particular indicator is appropriate versus others.

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 100+ sibling tools including many other technical indicators (ema, dema, trima, etc.), the agent receives no context about when triple exponential moving average is specifically needed, what financial analysis scenarios it applies to, or any prerequisites for its use.

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