get_macd_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose important behaviors such as data refresh behavior, historical vs real-time, or any side effects. It only states what it does, not how it behaves.

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, concise sentence that gets the point across with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding 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?

With an output schema present, return value details are covered. However, given the tool's complexity and the presence of sibling tools like technical_get_macd_analysis, the description leaves ambiguity about what exactly is returned (e.g., signal dates, strength). Minimal but acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. It does not explain how parameter values affect analysis or provide examples.

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 gets MACD crossover signals and divergence analysis, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling technical analysis tools like get_rsi_analysis or get_support_resistance.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no when-not-to-use instructions, and no mention of prerequisites or context like whether real-time data is used.

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