布林带 + RSI 组合

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — it fetches K-line data (拉取 K 线) and performs all computations in one pass — which conveys the dependency on exchange data. However, the term '直连版' is ambiguous and unexplained, and the meaning of '%B 与价格分区' outputs is not clarified, so the added value is moderate rather than strong.

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?

A single Japanese sentence that front-loads the action and lists the computable outputs without any filler or repetition of the input schema. The '直连版' prefix is cryptic and slightly undermines the line, but the rest of the description is economical and well-ordered.

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 exists and covers return values, so that par is not needed here. However, the meaning of '直连版', the mapping of parameters to each sub-computation, and any notion of K线 history depth/limits are missing. plus no hint to differentiate selection from the close sibling indicators. A complete definition for a combined-indicator tool should add these.

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 carries the full burden for explaining parameters, but it does not return an instruction for any parameter: how period relates to BB, how rsiPeriod relates to RSI, what limit governs, or what deviatiate+multiplier does. Only the implicit mapping — K-lines to limit and the BB/RSI sections to the two period parameters — is guessable. For a 6-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, this does not compensate for the gap.

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 names a specific verb-resource combination: pull K-lines and simultaneously compute full Bollinger Band data, RSI, %B, and price zones, which is clear and distinct from the name alone. It differentiates from siblings like indicator_bbands and indicator_rsi by the '同时' (simultaneously) framing, though the term '直连版' is never explained and the distinction from other combo indicators like MACD+RSI is left implicit.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this tool should be chosen when both Bollinger and RSI are needed simultaneously, and the title supports the combination intent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing guidance against the many sibling indicators like indicator_bbands, indicator_rsi, or indicator_macd_rsi.

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