ETF技术面：获取ETF基金的均线、MACD等技术面关键数据与解读

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving data and interpretation, but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and 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 a single sentence that repeats the title verbatim, which is concise but lacks front-loading of key information. It does not waste words, but it also doesn't add value beyond the title, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (technical analysis with interpretation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address behavioral aspects or usage context. With an output schema, return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should do more to explain the tool's role and limitations.

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 has 1 parameter with 100% coverage, describing 'query' as 'ETF基金代码或ETF基金名称' (ETF fund code or ETF fund name). The description does not add meaning beyond this, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4. The description implicitly supports the parameter by focusing on ETFs, but no extra details are provided.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'etfBasicInfo', 'etfLatestPrice', or 'etfPerformance'. Usage is implied by the title and description focusing on technical analysis for ETFs, but there is no clear direction on context or alternatives.

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