indicator_mfi

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the indicator's calculation method (volume-weighted RSI) and its purpose, but does not disclose details like return format, data source, or interpretation thresholds. This is adequate for a simple calculation tool but not rich.

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?

A single, focused sentence that fronts the action ('Calculate the Money Flow Index') and adds a brief definition. No wasted words; appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It explains what MFI is but omits what the return values look like (e.g., time series of MFI) and any interpretation guidance. However, the schema implies OHLCV fetching via 'limit', so it is minimally viable.

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 all 4 parameters with clear descriptions (symbol, timeframe, period, limit). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The mention of 'volume-weighted' slightly clarifies period relevance but adds minimal value.

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 Money Flow Index (MFI) and explains its nature as a volume-weighted RSI. This specific verb+resource combo distinguishes it from the many indicator_* siblings.

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 indicator versus alternatives like RSI, MACD, or other oscillators. It does not mention typical use cases (e.g., overbought/oversold detection) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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