indicator_bb_rsi_direct

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the outputs (BB, RSI, %B, price zones) but does not explain behavioral traits like whether the calculation is done from market data, is read-only, or has any side effects. It is adequate but lacks detail about the underlying process.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters) and lack of an output schema, the description lists the returned data types (BB data, RSI, %B, price zones) but does not explain their structure or format. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete to help the agent understand the output.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention parameters. Therefore, the score remains at the baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: it is a combined version that fetches K-line data and returns Bollinger Bands, RSI, %B, and price zones. The term '直连版' distinguishes it from other similar tools like indicator_bb_rsi (non-direct) and indicator_bbands_direct or indicator_rsi_direct, indicating it is a one-step combined direct 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 implies usage for one-step combined analysis of BB and RSI, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., calling individual indicators separately or using the non-direct version). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, only the benefit of convenience.

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