get_ema

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like data retrieval impact, rate limits, or permissions. It does not, leaving the agent without safety or performance context.

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 at one sentence, but it omits essential details. It is front-loaded but insufficient, balancing conciseness against completeness.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema details, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return format, data sources, or how to interpret the EMA values.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation for parameters (symbol, period, limit, interval). The agent receives no guidance on what values each parameter expects or their effect.

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 calculates the Exponential Moving Average, emphasizing it gives more weight to recent prices and is faster than SMA. This effectively communicates the core function and differentiates from sibling tool get_sma.

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 EMA vs other indicators like SMA or DEMA. The description only mentions faster response than SMA, but does not provide criteria for selection or contextual usage scenarios.

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