indicator_trima

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the weighting scheme but says nothing about the output format (e.g., array of values), behavior with insufficient data, or any side effects. The information given is accurate but minimal.

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 that front-loads the action ('Calculate the Triangular Moving Average') and includes a meaningful qualifier. There is no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 is relatively simple with well-documented inputs, and the description captures the core algorithm. However, without an output schema, the description does not specify what the response contains (e.g., calculated TRIMA values) or any limitations, which would help an agent understand the full context.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not need to since coverage is complete.

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 Triangular Moving Average (TRIMA)' and adds a distinguishing characteristic ('weights middle prices more for smoother trends') that differentiates it from other moving average indicators like 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 offers no guidance on when to use TRIMA over other indicators. It only describes the calculation method, not the contexts where it is preferable, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Among many sibling indicator_* tools, this leaves selection decisions unsupported.

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