get_volume_ma

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 states the basic calculation and spike detection without describing what the tool returns (e.g., moving average series, spike flags), how to interpret results, or any side effects or limitations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and supplemented by the spike detection feature. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential information about the return format (e.g., MA values, spike signals), and does not differentiate from similar technical indicator tools in the sibling list. An agent would not know what to expect from the tool's response.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including period, symbol, interval, and spike_threshold, with details like default values and ratio thresholds. The description's mention of 'current/average volume ratio' aligns with spike_threshold but adds little beyond the schema's own explanation.

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 a stock's volume moving average and detects volume spikes using current/average volume ratio. The verb '계산합니다' specifies the action, and the resource '거래량 이동평균' is specific, distinguishing it from other volume-related siblings like get_obv.

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 detecting volume spikes, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_obv, get_technical_summary) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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