get_macd

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral context. It discloses the output components but omits important details such as the price basis (e.g., close price), minimum historical data requirements, or any limitations that might affect results. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect interpretation.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the primary function, the second details return values. It is front-loaded, free of redundancy, and every word contributes meaning.

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 schema is rich with full parameter documentation, but the description lacks usage context, such as when to choose MACD over other indicators or what data conditions are needed. Since the tool is relatively simple and the schema covers parameters, a score of 3 reflects the missing usage guidance in the context of many technical-analysis siblings.

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 five parameters are fully documented in the schema (symbol, interval, fast_period, slow_period, signal_period) with descriptions, defaults, and an enum for interval. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 MACD for a stock and explicitly lists the returned components (MACD line, signal line, histogram, crossover signals). This verb+resource+output structure distinguishes it from sibling indicator tools such as get_rsi or get_stochastic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other technical indicators, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The description simply states what it calculates without offering selection criteria, leaving the agent without context for choosing this over siblings.

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