indicator_bbands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions a data requirement and does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., upper, middle, lower bands), side effects, or whether it is read-only. This leaves significant gaps.

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 with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's identity and a key prerequisite, fitting the requirement that every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite being a standard indicator, the description lacks information about the output structure (upper, middle, lower bands). Given the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return format. The constraint on data points is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds a valuable relationship: values length must be at least interval+1 to compute standard deviation. This goes beyond the schema's individual constraints, providing critical operational context.

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 '布林带 (Bollinger Bands)' clearly indicates that the tool computes Bollinger Bands, matching the tool name. This distinguishes it from other indicator tools like indicator_sma or indicator_ema, as each has a unique name and purpose.

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 provides a constraint (requires interval+1 data points) but offers no guidance on when to use Bollinger Bands versus alternative indicators. With many sibling indicators, explicit usage context is missing.

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