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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists the indicators but does not disclose what the tool actually returns (e.g., whether it returns all indicators or just one, the format, whether it includes current values or historical data, or if it requires additional context like period). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns complex technical data.

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, only two short sentences. It front-loads the list of indicators and provides clear usage context. The only minor issue is that it could be slightly more descriptive about what it returns, but it is not verbose or redundant.

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 has an output schema, which may explain the return shape, but the description is still thin. It does not explain how the indicators are presented (e.g., as a combined report or separate series), nor does it clarify that omitted parameters use defaults. Given the complexity of technical indicators, more context (like whether it returns recent values or full history) would be helpful, but the presence of an output schema mitigates some of this.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'code', with no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. However, since the tool is for A-shares, it is implicit that 'code' is a stock code. A 3 is fair because the parameter is simple and its meaning is highly inferable from the context, but the description still fails to explicitly confirm it.

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?

States the specific resource (technical indicators for A-shares) and lists the indicators (MA/MACD/KDJ/RSI/BOLL). It does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative, but the context hints that other tools cover different financial aspects. The description is clear enough to distinguish this as the technical-analysis tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when users ask about '技术面/指标/金叉死叉' (technical analysis/indicators/golden cross/death cross). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the trigger phrases are strong and specific.

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