indicator_stochastic_direct

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

No annotations are given, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states that it fetches K-lines and calculates, but does not disclose side effects, data freshness, number of API calls, or any limitations. The minimal description leaves the agent uncertain about internal 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?

The description is a single short sentence in Chinese (12 characters), which is concise and directly states the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the tool's identity. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate clauses for clarity, but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain output format, data types, example values, or how parameters interact (e.g., K-period vs smoothing). The agent lacks complete context for correct usage.

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%, meaning each parameter has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning the return of %K and %D, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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's purpose: it is a direct version of the stochastic oscillator that fetches K-lines and calculates %K and %D. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'indicator_stochastic' (likely a standard version) and other direct versions. The verb '计算' (calculate) and the return values '%K 和 %D' specify the output.

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. Sibling tools like 'indicator_stochastic' (non-direct) and other indicator_direct tools exist, but the description does not explain the trade-offs (e.g., direct vs. non-direct, parameter differences). The agent has no context to choose appropriately.

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