agent_technical_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It includes a custom label '[L:READ]' suggesting read-only behavior, but does not explain important traits such as data source (real-time/historical), rate limits, or error handling. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 concise (one line with structured prefix) and front-loads key information (read-only, category, multi-period). It earns a high score for efficiency, though it could be expanded slightly to improve clarity without losing brevity.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description only vaguely mentions 'direction consensus signal' without describing the actual return value (type, structure, fields). Given the tool’s complexity (multi-period calculation generating a report), the description is incomplete for an agent to understand what it will receive.

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% (both parameters described). The description mentions multi-period (1H/4H/1D) matching the default bars, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when description does not augment understanding.

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 it computes multi-period (1H/4H/1D) technical indicators and outputs a direction consensus signal. It clearly identifies the verb ('计算' calculate) and resource ('技术指标' technical indicators), and the inclusion of default periods helps distinguish from single-period tools. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the output, leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Despite many sibling tools (e.g., agent_market_scan, okx_indicator), the description offers no contextual hints about preferred use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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