get_minus_di

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to mention behavioral traits such as required parameters (symbol is required), output format, or any constraints like rate limits or data availability. The tool has an output schema, but the description adds no functional 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 a single sentence with no extraneous text, achieving conciseness. However, it is too brief for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema, sacrificing necessary detail.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the indicator's inputs, how parameters affect it, or what the output represents. The tool's complexity demands more 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 parameters have no descriptions. The description does not explain what 'limit', 'period', 'symbol', or 'interval' mean or how they affect the indicator calculation. This leaves the agent with no guidance on parameter 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 clearly states it is the Minus Directional Indicator and measures downward trend strength, which is a specific and relevant purpose. It differentiates from siblings like get_plus_di by focusing on downward direction, but does not explicitly compare.

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 on when to use this indicator over alternatives like get_plus_di, get_adx, or other trend strength tools. The description implies usage for downward trend measurement but lacks context for tool selection.

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