indicator_stochastic

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only the return shape and defaults, omitting side effects, safety (read-only), or rate limits. Since it is a calculation tool, read-only behavior is implied but not stated.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short Chinese sentences. Every sentence adds value: naming the indicator, describing output, and stating defaults. No wasted words.

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 description covers the return format and defaults but does not explain the output array structure, edge cases (e.g., insufficient data), or how it differs from 'indicator_stochastic_direct'. Given no output schema, more detail would help, but the essential information is present.

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 all parameters described (candles, kPeriod, kSmoothing, dSmoothing). The description reinforces the default parameters (14/3/3) already present in the schema, adding minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a stochastic oscillator and specifies the output format { stochK, stochD } and default parameters. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'indicator_stochastic_direct', which reduces clarity in choosing between them.

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 over other indicator tools or the 'direct' variant. The description lacks context on typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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