indicator_dma

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 data point requirements and does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a series of values, crossover signals). The term '双均线' is ambiguous—it could mean calculation of two moving averages or their difference. This is insufficient for an indicator tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides essential information about the tool's identity and a key requirement.

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 complexity of a double moving average indicator with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details about output format, edge cases (e.g., insufficient data), and differences from similar indicators. A more complete description would include return value hints and examples.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with brief descriptions like '价格数组' and '计算周期'. The tool description adds context that it is a double moving average, but does not elaborate on parameter specifics (e.g., how smoothingType affects calculation). The schema descriptions are adequate, and the description adds marginal value, so baseline score of 3.

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 '双均线 (DMA)' which clearly identifies it as a Double Moving Average indicator. It also specifies a data point requirement. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like indicator_dema (Double Exponential Moving Average) or other moving averages.

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 clear usage condition: requires at least max(short, long) data points. This is a helpful guideline for execution. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over other moving average indicators (e.g., SMA, EMA) or exclusions.

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