indicator_ao

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 minimum data point requirement ('需要至少 longInterval 个数据点'), which adds value, but does not discuss output, side effects, or other behaviors. Score 3 for minimal positive disclosure.

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, making it concise but lacking structure. It front-loads the tool name but could be better organized with separate usage notes. Score 3 for being brief yet missing clear structure.

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 complexity is moderate (5 sibling indicators), but the description fails to differentiate or explain return values. No output schema exists, yet no mention of what the tool returns. Incomplete for effective agent use, so score 2.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the constraint that at least longInterval data points are needed, but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond the schema descriptions. Acceptable but not exceptional.

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 states the tool computes the Awesome Oscillator (AO) and mentions a data requirement. It is more than a tautology but does not clearly distinguish from other indicator tools. A score of 3 reflects adequate but vague purpose clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other similar indicators (e.g., indicator_macd, indicator_rsi). The description lacks any usage context or alternatives, so it scores 2.

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