indicator_macd

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the output structure and default parameters, but does not discuss edge cases, data requirements (beyond schema), or computational behavior. Some transparency, but incomplete.

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 very short (three segments) and front-loaded with purpose and output. It efficiently conveys essential info, though it lacks usage guidance. Efficient but not maximally informative.

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 simple indicator with full schema coverage, the description provides core info (output, defaults) but lacks interpretation or practical context. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with MACD.

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 100%, so the schema already explains parameters. The description adds the default values (though already in schema) and mentions output structure, but no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 computes the MACD indicator, specifies the output format as { macd, signal, histogram }, and provides default parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling indicators like indicator_ema or indicator_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use MACD versus other indicators, no prerequisites, and no contrast with alternatives like indicator_macd_direct or indicator_macd_rsi. Usage context is entirely implied.

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