indicator_cmf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the indicator's concept but does not mention that it fetches OHLCV data, what output format to expect (single value vs. series), or whether it is a safe read-only operation. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple calculation tool with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return values or output shape, and there is no output schema to compensate. The agent knows what CMF is but not what to expect from the call.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by relating 'period' to the measurement window, but it doesn't explain the interplay of limit, period, symbol, or timeframe beyond what the schema already states.

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 Chaikin Money Flow (CMF) and explains that it measures buying/selling pressure over a period. This is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool strategy_cmf, relying on the indicator_ vs strategy_ naming convention.

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 alternatives such as strategy_cmf or other indicator tools. The description only defines what CMF measures, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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