indicator_kdj

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Calculate' which hints at a pure function, but it does not state whether it fetches OHLCV data, whether it modifies state, what inputs are required beyond the symbol, or what the return structure looks like. Given zero annotation safety signals, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core action and differentiator in 13 words, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description needs to explain what the tool returns (e.g., K, D, and J line series) and how the 'combination' works. It does neither. The tool is a complex technical indicator, but the description is too sparse to give an agent a complete mental model of expected outputs or behavior, leaving a major gap in usability.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters (limit, period, symbol, timeframe, signalPeriod). The description's mention of 'stochastic and momentum' gives high-level context but adds no syntax, format details, or parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

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 action ('Calculate') and the specific resource ('the KDJ Indicator'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('combines stochastic and momentum signals for trend analysis') that sets it apart from simpler indicator siblings like indicator_stochastic or indicator_momentum. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or fully scope its unique output, so it stops short of the highest tier.

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?

The phrase 'for trend analysis' provides an implicit use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over, say, indicator_stochastic or strategy_kdj. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative comparisons are given. This is implied usage at best, not active guidance.

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