analyze_mtf_sma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the output (alignment direction and confluence) but fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 very concise, consisting of a single line that front-loads the key concept. However, it is slightly too brief; a structured overview with separate sections for purpose and output would improve readability without adding significant length.

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 the complexity of multi-timeframe SMA analysis and the absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not define 'alignment direction' or 'confluence', nor does it explain how periods and timeframes interact. Compared to sibling tools like analyze_mtf_fibonacci which likely have richer descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (pair, periods, timeframes). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names visible in the schema. As a result, the agent has no understanding of what values to provide.

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 that the tool analyzes multi-timeframe SMA and determines alignment direction and confluence. It uses specific terms like 'Multi-Timeframe SMA' and 'MTF' which convey the resource and verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_sma_snapshot, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It simply states what the tool does without any usage recommendations.

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