get_kline_with_indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it automatically fetches historical data needed for indicator calculation ('自动处理指标计算所需的历史数据'), implying extra data may be retrieved beyond the requested date range. It also states that K-line and all indicators are returned in one call, which is useful expectation-setting. No contradictions found.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the key purpose with '重要', lists all included indicators in parentheses, and adds critical behavior (auto historical data handling) without any filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, supported markets, included indicators, and a key behavioral nuance (auto history fetching). It does not detail the response structure or what happens if the `indicators` field is omitted, but it is sufficient for initial selection and invocation. More detail on output format would push it to a 5.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the tool supports A/HK/US markets (correlating with the `market` and `symbol` params), auto-handles history for indicators (relevant to `startDate`/`endDate`), and provides a list of configurable indicators (matching the `indicators` nested object). This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '获取带技术指标的 K 线数据' (get K-line data with technical indicators), and explicitly lists MA/MACD/BOLL/KDJ/RSI/WR/BIAS/CCI/ATR. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_history_kline or get_minute_kline by focusing on bundled indicators. The supported markets (A/HK/US) further clarify scope.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need K-line data with multiple technical indicators in a single call, and highlights the automatic handling of historical data for indicator calculation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for minute-level data). Clear context, but no explicit exclusions.

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