get_technical_indicator_ema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without any additional behavioral traits. It doesn't cover aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., numeric value, chart data). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get Exponential Moving Average (EMA) technical indicator'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary details or redundancy are present.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and output details. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't add enough value to make up for missing annotations and output schema, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full tool behavior.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'period' relates to EMA calculation or typical values. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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's purpose: 'Get Exponential Moving Average (EMA) technical indicator'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('EMA technical indicator'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_technical_indicator_rsi' or 'get_technical_indicator_sma', which would require mentioning it's specifically for EMA rather than other indicators.

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 this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_technical_indicator_rsi' or 'get_technical_indicator_sma', nor does it explain the context for choosing EMA over other technical indicators. There's no information on prerequisites, such as needing stock data or specific timeframes, leaving usage unclear.

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