indicator_macd_direct

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

The description implies that the tool fetches K-line data internally, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet.

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 short sentence that front-loads key information: the tool name ('直连版'), action ('获取 K 线后直接计算 MACD'), and default parameters. It is concise but could be more informative.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain the return format, how the MACD result is presented, or any other contextual details. The tool's behavior is under-specified.

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 in Chinese. The description only adds the default parameter values (12/26/9), which are already present in the schema defaults. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 that the tool fetches K-line data and calculates MACD directly, with default parameters 12/26/9. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'indicator_macd', which likely has a similar 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'indicator_macd' or other direct indicator tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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