indicator_tema

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

With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the calculation intent and does not mention data fetching, output format, side effects, or any operational implications. This lack of information leaves an agent uncertain about what the tool actually does beyond the name.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action verb and packs meaningful comparison into the dependent clause. No unnecessary words or repetitions are present.

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 no output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description should clarify the return value and intended use, but it does not. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., a series of TEMA values), which OHLCV data it relies on, and how the result relates to the symbol/timeframe inputs. While the schema is complete, the operational context remains underspecified.

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), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'reduces lag further than DEMA' offers minor insight into period selection but does not materially enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb 'Calculate' and clearly identifies the resource as the 'Triple Exponential Moving Average (TEMA)'. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling indicators by explicitly comparing it to DEMA ('reduces lag further than DEMA'), which satisfies the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion.

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 clear context for choosing TEMA over DEMA by noting its lower lag and suitability for 'trend clarity'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with other moving averages like EMA or SMA, so it stops short of a full explicit guidance.

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