成交量加权平均价

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

The annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it fetches K-lines, computes a cumulative rather than rolling VWAP, and returns a stable sequence. This gives real insight into the computation model without contradicting the annotations.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The core mechanism is front-loaded ('直连版') and the computation objective is stated directly, making the description easy to process.

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?

For a simple read-only indicator with only three parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for calling the tool. However, the vague '直连版' term and the absence of parameter and usage context leave some room for an agent to mis-model when and how to invoke it.

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 compensate by explaining symbol, interval, or limit. It only implies K-line context, so the agent must rely entirely on the property names and enum values without any descriptive clarification.

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 states a clear action and resource: pull K-lines, compute cumulative VWAP, and return a series. It clearly distinguishes this from trading tools, but it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling indicator tools such as indicator_sma or indicator_ema. The overall purpose is clear even without sidder 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?

There is no guidance about when to use VWAP relative to other indicators, or which conditions favor this '直连版' over any alternative. '直连版' hints that another version may exist, but no alternative, tradeoff, or exclusion is described.

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