indicator_mfiCalculate Money Flow Index (MFI) from Binance K-lines to identify overbought and oversold levels using volume-weighted price action.
直连版：拉取 K 线后计算 MFI，返回稳定序列（0-100，带成交量的 RSI 变体）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| period | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| interval | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only behavior, and the description adds meaningful context about the data source (K-line pull) and the output format (stable 0-100 series). It does not contradict the annotations and adds transparency beyond them, though it omits edge cases or failure behavior.
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?
A single compact sentence that packs the action, formula basis, and output range without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the operation and delivers high information density.
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?
The tool is a standard technical indicator with an output schema, so the return structure is already covered. The description adds the key conceptual distinction (volume-weighted RSI) and data dependency (requires K-lines), which is nearly sufficient for correct invocation by an agent familiar with MFI.
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 explain any of the four parameters. Even common MFI semantics like 'period' as lookback window or 'limit' as data length are left completely implicit, forcing the agent to rely on naming heuristics.
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 action: pull K-lines and compute MFI, returning a bounded 0-100 series that is a volume-weighted RSI variant. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling indicators by name.
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 alternative indicator tools such as indicator_rsi or indicator_obv. The phrase '直连版' hints at a variant but does not explain trade-offs or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.