detect_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the underlying methods (EMA stack, regression slope) but does not disclose output type, edge cases, data dependencies, or performance characteristics. The description is insufficient to understand runtime behavior.

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, achieving conciseness but at the cost of completeness. It front-loads the core purpose. However, given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, more sentences are warranted to explain parameters and behavior.

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?

With no output schema and minimal parameter info, the description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively. It does not explain how trend direction is returned (e.g., string, numeric), valid timeframe values, or the significance of EMA combination. A more comprehensive description is needed given the low richness of structured fields.

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 detail about parameters. 'timeframe' has a default but no possible values or meaning beyond the name. 'symbol' is self-explanatory but no validation constraints or examples. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 detects trend direction using EMA stack and regression slope. It distinguishes from sibling indicators like RSI or MACD by focusing on trend direction rather than a specific metric. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., bullish/bearish string, numeric score).

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 such as detect_support_resistance or calculate_ema. The description lacks context about appropriate market conditions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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