indicator_vwma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only explains the formula concept but fails to describe the return format, data requirements, or any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity for an unannotated tool.

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 efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple and the schema describes all inputs, so this is not overly complex. However, without an output schema or behavioral details, the description leaves the return format and usage context incomplete. It is adequate for basic invocation but lacks richer 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters (limit, period, symbol, timeframe) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 Volume Weighted Moving Average (VWMA), specifies the exact indicator, and explains its purpose of incorporating volume for trend strength. This distinguishes it from other indicator tools in the sibling list (e.g., SMA, EMA, VWAP).

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 usage for trend strength analysis with volume, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like VWAP or SMA, nor does it mention exclusions. This is an implied usage context rather than explicit guidance.

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