平均趋向指标

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by stating the internal flow: it fetches K-lines, calculates ADX, and returns a stable sequence. It also clarifies the numeric output domain and that the value is direction-independent, which helps an agent understand what the tool actually returns.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the tool's access mode and calculation flow, then adds the key context about the output range and interpretation. There is no wasted text or redundant schema re-statement.

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 read-only indicator with output schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a basic call. It does not provide explicit guidance about the period/limit parameters or how to choose this tool over sibling indicators, but the output schema and defaults make an ordinary symbol/interval call feasible.

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 needs to compensate. However, the description only mentions K-lines and ADX, providing no explanation of period (default 14), limit (default 200), or how these affect the calculation and returned series. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names and defaults alone.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: it pulls K-lines and computes ADX, returning a stable trend-strength sequence. The additional context that the result is 0-100 and direction-independent clearly identifies the indicator's purpose, although it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling indicator tools.

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 the tool is appropriate when trend strength is needed regardless of direction, but it does not explicitly say when to use ADX instead of another indicator such as indicator_rsi or indicator_bb. There is no when-not-to-use information or explicit sibling alternative.

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