美股技术指标

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only reveals the API key prerequisite. No disclosure of read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior. For a data retrieval tool, more transparency is needed.

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 sentence for purpose plus one for prerequisite. Information is front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for purpose and requirements), but overall efficient.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on return format, errors, or usage context. Adequate but not complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the API key requirement, which is not in the schema, but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond listing examples. Minimal added value over schema.

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 fetches technical analysis indicators for US stocks, listing examples (SMA, EMA, RSI, MACD, BBANDS). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'stock_indicators' (non-US) and price tools.

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 description implies usage for US stock technical analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor when not to use it. The API key requirement is mentioned but no comparative guidance.

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