trix

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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data source it queries, whether there are rate limits or authentication requirements, what format the response takes, or any error conditions. 'Fetch' implies retrieval but provides no behavioral context.

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 three words. While severely under-specified, it wastes no words and gets straight to the core function. Every word ('Fetch triple exponential average') directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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 technical indicator tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is completely inadequate. It provides only the barest function name without explaining parameter meanings, return format, usage context, or behavioral characteristics. The agent would be flying blind when trying to 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 6 parameters (4 required) and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides zero information about what any parameter means. The agent must guess what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', 'time_period', 'series_type', and 'datatype' represent, their valid values, or how they affect the calculation. The description doesn't compensate for the complete 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 triple exponential average' clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (triple exponential average), which is a specific technical indicator. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling technical indicator tools (like ema, dema, t3, etc.), leaving the agent to guess how this particular exponential average differs from 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With dozens of sibling technical analysis tools available, there's no indication of what problem this specific indicator solves, what market conditions it's suited for, or when to choose it over similar tools like ema or t3.

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