get_dema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the functional effect (reduces lag) but omits details such as data source, calculation specifics, or any limitations. For a technical indicator tool, this minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to anticipate 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 very concise (one sentence) but at the expense of completeness. While it front-loads the core purpose, it omits necessary details about parameters and usage. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single sentence does not fully inform.

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?

With an output schema present, return value documentation is not required. However, the description lacks context for 4 parameters and does not guide usage or disclose behavioral traits. Given the complexity of technical indicators, this description is incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 0%, meaning the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. However, the description says nothing about 'symbol', 'period', 'interval', or 'limit'. For example, 'period' is a critical parameter for moving averages but is not explained. This adds no value 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 identifies the tool as a Double Exponential Moving Average and distinguishes it from EMA by stating it reduces lag. The verb 'get' and resource 'DEMA' are explicit, and the function is differentiated from sibling tools like get_ema and get_tema.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ema or get_tema. The description implies it is for reducing lag, but does not state when this is beneficial or what trade-offs exist. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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