indicator_adx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the error behavior for insufficient data but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. For a computational tool, the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but more context would improve transparency.

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 sentence that conveys the purpose and a critical usage condition. It is highly efficient and front-loaded with the tool's identity.

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 description lacks information about the return value format. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the tool returns (e.g., an array of ADX values). Given the complexity of the indicator, this is a notable gap.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the minimum data requirement linked to the interval parameter, which is not covered in the schema. This helps the agent understand the practical constraint.

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 '平均趋向指数 (ADX)', which is the name of the indicator, indicating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes it from sibling indicators (e.g., indicator_rsi, indicator_macd) by calling out the ADX calculation.

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 explicitly specifies a data requirement ('需要至少 2×interval 个数据点') and warns about insufficient data ('不足会返回错误'). This guides the agent on when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives explicitly.

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