get_mom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that output sign indicates trend direction but omits behavioral details like what the output value represents (e.g., raw momentum, scaled, or as a series), how periods are calculated, or any side effects. An output schema exists, but the description offers no additional behavioral 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 extremely short (one sentence) and to the point. However, it could benefit from a second sentence to add usage context without losing conciseness. It avoids fluff but is arguably under-specified.

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 (technical indicator with 4 parameters, 0% schema description, many siblings, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return structure (despite output schema existing), does not address parameters, and provides no selection context among siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'period' only implicitly and provides no explanation for 'limit', 'symbol', or 'interval'. The parameter names are generic and ambiguous without elaboration, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 measures price change over a period (momentum) and provides interpretation hints (positive=uptrend, negative=downtrend). This distinguishes it to some extent among 50+ sibling technical indicators, though it doesn't explicitly compare to similar ones like ROC or MACD.

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 tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling indicators, it fails to describe ideal scenarios or conditions where momentum is preferred over other oscillators or trend-following tools.

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