indicator_mmax

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the core calculation but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, which price field (open/high/low/close) is used, or what the output format is. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist), but it lacks additional behavioral context beyond the basic calculation.

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 concise sentence (12 words) that is front-loaded with the action verb 'Calculate'. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content. It adheres to the principle of minimal viable description.

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 simple nature of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate but has clear gaps: it does not specify which OHLCV price is used (the 'maximum price' could be the high, close, etc.) and does not mention the return structure. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the expected response format. This is a meaningful omission for an indicator tool.

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 coverage is 100% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value—it only mentions 'rolling period' which maps to the 'period' parameter. It does not clarify which OHLCV price is used or how 'limit' and 'timeframe' affect the computation, but the schema already covers these basics.

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 function: 'Calculate the Moving Max (MMAX) - computes the maximum price over a rolling period'. It uses a specific verb ('computes') and resource ('maximum price over a rolling period'), which distinctly distinguishes it from sibling indicators like Mmin, SMA, or EMA.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this indicator over alternatives. It lacks any mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationships to other indicators such as Mmin or SMA. The only implied usage is from the name itself, which is inadequate for an agent deciding among many indicator tools.

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