get_technical_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what happens if insufficient data is available, or how the calculated indicators are returned. The schema's period note mentions a 30-data-point requirement, but that is in the schema, not the description.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and list of indicators. Every word is informative, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description only lists the indicator names without explaining the return format, data structure, or any edge cases (e.g., unsupported codes, data sufficiency). This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent invoking the tool, though the listed indicators provide some clarity.

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 100%, so the parameters (code and period) are already fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, such as how they affect indicator calculations, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the details.

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 function: calculating A-share technical indicators, and enumerates specific indicators (MACD, RSI, KDJ, Bollinger Bands, moving averages). It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and a clear resource, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_kline or get_realtime_quote, which could also provide related data.

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. The description only states what it does, without indicating scenarios (e.g., 'use for trend analysis') or exclusions (e.g., 'not for real-time pricing'). Sibling tools are not mentioned.

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