布林带

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world safe. The description adds that it first pulls K-lines and returns a stable triple sequence, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not clarify what 'stable' means, how limits are applied, or whether the output aligns with the K-line history length, so transparency remains partial.

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, focused sentence with the key behavioral fact and output shape front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse. It is slightly sparse, but there is no waste or unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a five-parameter indicator tool with no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: the meaning and defaults of the parameters, how the returned triple is structured over the K-line window, and how it behaves with different limits. The annotations cover safety but not operational details, so an agent still lacks enough to use the parameters confidently.

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%, and the description does not compensate: it does not explain 'limit', 'period', 'deviationMultiplier', 'symbol', or 'interval'. Although the description ties the calculation to K-lines and the Bollinger output, it provides almost no semantic value for the five parameters, which are critical for correct invocation.

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 a concrete behavior: it pulls K-line data, computes Bollinger Bands, and returns a lower/middle/upper triple sequence. It goes beyond restating the title and gives the return shape. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling indicators, though 'direct version' hints at an implementation distinction.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling indicator tools such as indicator_bb_rsi or indicator_sma. The phrase '直连版' hints at a direct-vs-composite usage context, but no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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