indicator_ma_cross

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output states but does not disclose behavioral traits such as minimum data requirements, handling of insufficient length, performance characteristics, or what happens when the cross is not found. The absence of an output schema further reduces transparency.

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 two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool's function and stating its replacement role. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format and structure. It only lists possible states but not the complete response (e.g., object fields, timing). Also missing edge cases and input constraints beyond schema. Incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the supported types and terms. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it is a unified moving average cross detection tool supporting SMA and EMA, detecting golden cross, death cross, or none. It explicitly says it replaces two separate tools (ema_cross and ma_cross), distinguishing it from siblings and providing specific verb and resource.

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 indicates this tool should be used instead of the separate ema_cross and ma_cross tools, providing a clear recommendation. However, it does not discuss situations where the direct version 'indicator_ma_cross_direct' might be preferred or any prerequisites for usage.

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