indicator_mmin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It simply restates the calculation without mentioning side effects, data source, return format, or any limitations. The agent cannot infer whether this is a safe read operation or if it has any side effects.

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 sentence of 15 words, front-loading the purpose. It is concise and contains no redundant information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value, but it only states the mathematical definition. It also does not mention that OHLCV data is used, despite the schema's 'limit' parameter hinting at it. The description is too minimal for an agent to understand inputs and outputs fully.

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 four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as how 'period' affects the calculation or what values are valid.

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 Min (MMIN) - computes the minimum price over a rolling period'. The verb 'Calculate' and specific resource 'Moving Min' convey a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other sibling indicators beyond the name.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether it is for trend analysis or other contexts. It is a standalone definition without usage context.

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