stock_tech_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the default returns the latest JSON, return_series=True returns a windowed series for charting, and WR is intentionally deprecated. However, it omits data source, update frequency, lookback requirements, and any safety or side-effect notes.

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?

Three tight sentences with the indicator list front-loaded, followed by return-mode behavior and a deprecation note. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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 output schema handles return-value structure, and the description adequately covers the indicator set and output modes. But with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and a similar sibling tool, the missing parameter details and lack of sibling differentiation leave meaningful gaps for a complex tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters. It explains return_series and window, but market and period valid values are not specified, and symbol is only implied by the tool name. This leaves more than half of the parameters under-documented.

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 opens with '计算 A 股技术指标' (calculate A-share technical indicators), naming a specific verb, resource, and market scope. It lists 14 concrete indicators, and the A-share scope clearly distinguishes it from stock_indicators_hk and stock_indicators_us.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It does explain default vs return_series behavior and notes WR is deprecated, but it never tells an agent when to choose this tool over stock_tech_indicators_easytdx or other indicator/charting tools.

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