indicator_rma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains the calculation method ('applies a rolling EMA') and does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a time series of RMA values), whether it fetches historical data based on the 'limit' parameter, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized and contains no fluff, though it could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose. It earns a high score for structure but not a perfect one due to its brevity.

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 moderate complexity of a technical indicator and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return format, scaling, or what data is used, leaving the agent without critical context for invoking the tool correctly. It is not enough for the agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters (limit, period, symbol, timeframe), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'Calculate' and the specific resource 'Rolling Moving Average', making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish RMA from the many sibling moving-average indicators (e.g., SMA, EMA, TEMA), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 phrase 'for smoother trend tracking' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose RMA over alternatives, and no mention of exclusions or conditions. This is implied usage rather than clear guidance.

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