indicator_macd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains what MACD tracks but does not describe the output format, data source (e.g., OHLCV), or any side effects. For a pure calculation tool, this is a moderate 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('Calculate the MACD') and includes a concise explanation of purpose. There is no redundant or filler information, and it is appropriately sized for a simple indicator tool.

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 straightforward calculation tool with a comprehensive schema, the description is adequate but incomplete regarding output expectations. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the returned MACD values or histogram would improve completeness, but the basic purpose is covered.

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 input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'EMA differences' only implicitly relates to fast/slow periods and does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Calculate the MACD' with a specific verb and resource, and adds explanatory context about momentum and trend direction. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like indicator_ema or strategy_macd, but the name and calculation focus make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage through 'tracks momentum and trend direction', but it does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other indicators or strategy_macd, leaving the context implied rather than stated.

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