stock_chanlun_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: data source (easy_tdx/Tongdaxin direct connection), no API key required, structured JSON output, and return of {error} when easy_tdx is unavailable or market data is missing. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but the core operational behavior is well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, data source, output type, and failure behavior are each covered in minimal sentences with no filler. Every clause 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?

The tool has a simple one-required-parameter schema and an output schema, so return values do not need to be described. Error behavior is documented, but the lack of parameter explanations and the absence of guidance on which markets or symbol types are supported leave gaps, especially with many sibling tools present.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the three parameters. It does not explain symbol format, what market values are valid beyond the SH default, or what count controls. The agent must rely on defaults and domain knowledge.

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 names a specific verb ('缠论分析') and resource (stock analysis via easy_tdx/Tongdaxin direct connection), and enumerates the output components: 笔/线段/中枢/买卖点/背驰. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as stock_tech_indicators_easytdx.

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 use for Chan theory analysis and notes the direct-connection/no-API-key setup, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The error-handling note is about behavior, not tool selection.

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