calculate_macd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'latest values', which hints at a read operation but does not disclose whether the calculation uses default settings (e.g., 12, 26, 9), what data source is used (e.g., close prices), or any limitations (e.g., data availability). Behavioral information is minimal.

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 short (one phrase), which is concise but lacks structure. It does not use full sentences or provide logical flow. While every word is necessary, the brevity sacrifices clarity. A better-balanced description would include more detail in a few sentences.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format (are the values numbers or objects?), the calculation method, or how to interpret results. For an indicator tool, this leaves critical gaps for correct invocation and use.

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%, and the description adds no information about the two parameters (symbol and timeframe). It does not explain that 'symbol' is a ticker or that 'timeframe' likely controls the data interval. The agent gets no help understanding what values to provide or how they affect the result.

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 calculates the MACD indicator and lists its components (line, signal, histogram). It specifies 'latest values', indicating it returns current data. Given the sibling tools include other indicators (e.g., calculate_sma, calculate_rsi), the purpose is distinct enough for an agent to identify it as the MACD calculator.

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 alternative indicators or other tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate market conditions, or how MACD differs from similar tools like calculate_rsi or calculate_bollinger_bands. The agent receives no decision-making context.

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