indicator_ma_cross_direct

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool fetches K-line data and detects cross, but omits behavioral details like data sourcing (live vs cached), error handling, or implications of parameter choices. The 'direct' aspect is not explained.

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?

Single concise sentence in Chinese efficiently states purpose and supported types. Could benefit from structured format (e.g., listing output states) but remains waste-free and front-loaded.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, description should specify exact return format (e.g., field name, data type). It mentions possible outputs but not structure. Also lacks differentiation from sibling tool, making it incomplete for agent decision-making.

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 each parameter described in schema. The description adds context that parameters correspond to fast/slow lines and smoothing types, which aligns with schema. No new insight beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool detects fast/slow moving average cross status (golden_cross/death_cross/none) from K-line data, with support for SMA and EMA. The verb 'detect' and resource 'cross status' are specific, and the name distinguishes it from sibling 'indicator_ma_cross', but explicit differentiation is absent.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs the sibling 'indicator_ma_cross' or other indicators. The description implies usage for cross detection but lacks prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives. Agent must infer from context.

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