SuperTrend

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

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true，描述补充了“拉取 K 线后计算”和“返回稳定序列”，这增加了对于工具行为的理解。但没有对数据源、稳定序列的含义或限制、是否依赖历史K线等做进一步披露。

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?

描述只有两句话，并且把主要行为、返回内容放在第一句，参数说明放在第二句，无冗余信息，阅读成本低。

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?

有输出 schema 作为补充，描述已覆盖算法来源和返回形态，但缺少 limit 的含义、直连版本的适用场景以及与其他 indicator 类工具的区分。对于一个需要 5 个参数的工具而言，本描述的信息仍不够完整。

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?

描述补充了 period 为 ATR 周期、multiplier 为通道倍数的语义，这两个定义是 schema 中缺失的。但它没有描述 symbol、interval、limit 的确切含义做到，另外定义不够完整；至少覆盖了部分核心参数。

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?

描述明确说明“直连版”是拉取 K 线线后后计算 SuperTrend 并返回“supertrend 值 + BULLISH/BEARISH 方向”，给出了具体动词、资源和输出形态，能够清晰区分。

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?

描描述没有说明在什么场景下优选此工具、何时应使用其他替代工具，也没有给出排除条件。虽然提到“直连版”，但这并不能让 agent 清楚它与其它 indicator 类工具的分工

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