get_indicators_bulk

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns aggregated judgment values only (not time series), operates in parallel, and caps at 100 stocks. It could mention error handling or data freshness, but the current disclosure is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads a warning and purpose, uses bullet points for parameters, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary 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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, batch processing, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and relationships to siblings. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or result pagination, but overall quite complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args block fully explains each parameter: purpose, type, default values, valid options, and cross-references to get_indicators. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's function ('parallel calculation of indicators for multiple stocks') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chart and get_indicators. It explicitly notes what it is not (a chart tool) and positions it as a core screening 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 provides explicit guidance: use this instead of calling get_indicators multiple times, and use get_chart for candle visualization. It also mentions the limit of 100 stocks, giving clear context for when to use the tool.

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