indicator_sma

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 SMA concept and does not mention that the tool likely fetches OHLCV data based on symbol, timeframe, and limit, nor does it describe the return format, edge cases, or error behavior. This lack of behavioral detail leaves an agent with insufficient information to anticipate tool behavior.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. It is free of verbose language and every word contributes to the meaning. However, it is slightly under-specified for the tool's complexity, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and how it operates. It only describes the SMA calculation concept, not the tool's data-fetching behavior, return value structure, or potential error conditions. This is a significant completeness gap for an indicator that requires market data.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (limit, period, symbol, timeframe), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already offers; it only implicitly relates to 'period' by mentioning averaging over a period. It meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 Simple Moving Average (SMA) with the verb 'Calculate' and the specific resource 'Simple Moving Average (SMA)'. It also adds context by describing what it does ('averages prices over a period') and its purpose ('to identify trends'), which distinguishes it from other technical indicators based on name and concept.

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 'to identify trends' implies a general use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer SMA over other indicators (e.g., EMA, MACD) or provide any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The usage guidance is implied rather than clearly defined, fitting the 'implied usage' level.

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