indicator_macd

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions a data point requirement. It does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., MACD line, signal line, histogram), its trend-following nature, or any side effects. The behavioral burden is not carried.

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?

Two short sentences provide the essential purpose and a technical requirement. No wasted words; structure is efficient for a simple indicator tool.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value—which it does not. It lacks details on output interpretation, common usage, and preconditions beyond data points. Incomplete for effective use.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds only a requirement on data points (slow+signal), not on individual parameter meanings. The schema descriptions are concise, so the description adds minimal value beyond schema, keeping the score at baseline 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 clearly states the tool calculates MACD (指数平滑异同移动平均线), a specific technical indicator. It provides a data requirement (slow+signal points). This distinguishes it from sibling indicator tools.

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 does not specify when to use MACD versus other indicators, nor does it provide context for appropriate usage. Only a data requirement is given, which is insufficient guidance.

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