indicator_trix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only defines the indicator mathematically and does not mention what the tool actually returns (e.g., a series or a single value), whether it fetches OHLCV data, or how it handles missing parameters. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary function ('Calculate') and provides the indicator's full name and purpose. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 description is minimal and does not explain the return format or how the parameters affect the calculation. Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior. However, as a straightforward indicator calculation tool, the description provides a basic level of completeness.

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 100% coverage of the four parameters (symbol, period, limit, timeframe), each with a concise description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is complete, no compensation is needed.

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 Triple Exponential Average (TRIX), a specific technical indicator, and notes it measures momentum with triple smoothing. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling indicators like TEMA 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 implies the tool is used when a TRIX value is needed, but does not explicitly explain when to prefer TRIX over other momentum indicators (e.g., RSI, MACD). There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the indicator name alone.

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