indicator_dema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context by explaining that DEMA 'smooths price data with reduced lag', which is a mathematical property not in the schema. However, it doesn't disclose return format or data fetching behavior (though the schema covers fetching via 'limit').

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and specific indicator name. Every clause adds value ('calculate', 'DEMA', 'smooths', 'reduced lag', 'trend detection'). No fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the core calculation but omits what the returned data looks like (e.g., a time series of DEMA values). The schema and sibling context provide some completeness, but the absence of output details keeps it at a 3.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Trading pair, e.g., BTC/USDT', 'Timeframe'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Calculate') and the specific resource ('Double Exponential Moving Average (DEMA)'). It differentiates from sibling indicator tools by naming DEMA explicitly and adding a unique property ('reduced lag').

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?

The description gives a clear context for use: 'for trend detection' with the characteristic 'reduced lag', which implies when this indicator would be preferred over other moving averages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear context without detailed when-not guidance.

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