get_hot_stocks

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 only states that results are sorted by attention heat and include heat change. It discloses nothing about data freshness, pagination, auth requirements, or whether this is a safe read operation. The description is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clear line, followed by a tight Args block. No wasted sentences. It's appropriately compact for a two-parameter tool, though slightly terse given it's the sole carrier of behavioral meaning.

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 an output schema present and only two optional parameters, the description adequately documents the parameters and purpose. However, the absence of any usage guidance or behavioral context (read-only nature, heat-change semantics) leaves gaps an agent needs to invoke it confidently. Adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It maps both parameters to real meaning: 'market: CN A股 / HK 港股 / US 美股' explains valid values the schema only carries as a default string, and 'limit: 取前多少名，最多 100' documents the upper bound. This is genuine value beyond the input 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 states the resource precisely: a Xueqiu popularity leaderboard of stocks ranked by user attention, including heat change. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_hot_posts (posts, not stocks) and search_stock (search, not ranking). It lacks an explicit verb but 'get' is in the name, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 Args block documents parameters but provides no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives. An agent isn't told when to choose this over search_stock, get_quote, or screen_stocks, nor what scenarios favor a popularity ranking. The market parameter values hint at coverage but don't substitute for routing guidance.

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