technical_indicatorRetrieve MACD, KDJ, and RSI technical indicators for A-share stocks by providing a six-digit stock code.
技术指标分析：MACD / KDJ / RSI。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | 股票代码，6位数字，如 "600519"。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the supported indicators and does not explain whether the analysis is real-time, historical, or based on default periods, nor what the output represents.
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 compact sentence with no filler words. The indicator list is immediately front-loaded, making the tool's purpose easy to grasp at a glance.
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 no annotations, no usage guidance, and only a one-line description, the tool is minimally adequate but incomplete. An agent still must infer when to select this tool among many analyzers and what kind of technical indicator output to expect.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single 'symbol' parameter as a 6-digit stock code. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics fully.
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 identifies the tool's scope by naming the specific indicators MACD, KDJ, and RSI, which help distinguish it from sibling tools like sector_analyzer or margin_analysis. It lacks an explicit action verb such as 'calculates' or 'returns', but the resource is unambiguous.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like a_stock_screener or dragon_tiger_analyzer. The description implies technical-indicator use but gives no exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.