indicator_adx_direct

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data source updates, rate limits, or potential errors. It only states the input and expected output, lacking depth for safe invocation.

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, straightforward sentence in Chinese. It is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Minor issue: '直连版' could be clarified for non-Chinese agents, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially explains return values (+DI, -DI) but lacks detail on the structure, error handling, or edge cases. Moderate complexity (5 params) warrants a bit more completeness.

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 high (80%), and parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The description adds no new meaning beyond stating it uses klines. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool computes the Average Directional Index (ADX) directly from klines and returns +DI and -DI. It uses '直连版' (direct version) to hint at differentiation from a non-direct sibling, but does not explicitly distinguish from 'indicator_adx'.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'indicator_adx' or other indicators. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it.

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