indicator_rma

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full burden. It only notes a prerequisite (minimum data points) but fails to explain computation details, edge cases (e.g., insufficient data), or return format.

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 short sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the indicator name. No extraneous content, though some additional structure could improve readability.

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 of a technical indicator, the description is minimal. It lacks details on the formula, return values (no output schema), and how RMA differs from similar indicators. Incomplete for agent decision-making.

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 Chinese descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the prerequisite about data points, which is somewhat redundant but reinforces usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Relative Moving Average (RMA)' in Chinese, clearly identifying it as a specific technical indicator. It distinguishes itself from sibling indicator tools by name, though the English translation is brief.

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 only mentions a data requirement ('at least interval data points') but gives no context on when to use RMA versus other moving averages or indicators. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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