get_macd

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the computation defaults, omitting critical details like return format, whether multiple lines are returned, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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 a single short sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it is under-specified, lacking necessary details. It earns a middle score because while not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not cover time range handling, pagination, or the fact that there are many configurable parameters. Although an output schema exists, the description still fails to provide sufficient context for correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only hints at three parameters via default values (12/26/9), leaving seven parameters (ticker, timespan, series_type, timestamp, limit, cursor) unexplained. This minimal addition provides little beyond the schema structure.

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 clearly states the tool provides MACD indicator values for a stock, with default windows. It uniquely identifies the resource (stock's MACD) and verb (get), distinguishing it from sibling indicator tools like get_sma, get_ema, and get_rsi.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description lacks any information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other technical indicators. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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