indicator_multi_direct

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs batch computation from a single K-line fetch and can include extra HLC indicators via boolean flags. However, it does not detail behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or return structure. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second sentence adds optional capabilities and comparative benefit. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most critical information is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple indicators) and absence of an output schema, the description explains what indicators are computed but does not specify the output format or structure. While the context implies a combined result, the lack of explicit return details leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the boolean parameters (includeATR, includeADX, includeStoch) enable additional HLC indicators, clarifying their role. This adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 it fetches K-line data once and computes multiple indicators (RSI, MACD, BBands) simultaneously, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces three separate calls to rsi_direct, macd_direct, and bbands_direct. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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 explains that the tool is for batch retrieval of multiple direct indicators, saving network round trips compared to calling individual direct tools. It offers optional additional indicators (ATR, ADX, Stoch) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list exclusion criteria. However, the context is clear.

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