get_dx

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The one-line description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. There is no mention of authentication, rate limits, what the tool consumes or modifies, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices meaningful content. While it is short, it lacks structure and fails to include critical information. True conciseness would pack more value into the limited space.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, many siblings, an output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the mathematical concept of DX, how to interpret values, or common use cases. The existence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of usage context.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (symbol, limit, period, interval). The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 it measures trend strength via the Directional Movement Index, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings like get_adx, which also relates to DMI. The brief description is insufficient for distinguishing among many technical indicator tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 50 sibling tools, explicit usage recommendations or exclusions are essential. The description lacks any context about its relation to other indicators or appropriate scenarios.

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