get_margin_trading

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data scope (balance, buying, net buying) and parameter constraints (max 90 days), but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. It never explicitly states it is read-only, though the nature implies it. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the data fields.

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 two parts: a one-line purpose and a concise Args list. The purpose is front-loaded and the parameter explanations are terse and informative. Every sentence serves a function, with no filler.

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 simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential context: the data scope, the eligible-stocks constraint, and parameter meanings. It lacks details on the response structure, but that is handled by the output schema. Possibly could mention the time series nature, but it's implied by '回溯交易日数'. Overall it's quite complete for this tool.

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 schema provides only types and defaults with 0% description coverage. The description fills the gap by explaining that symbol is a stock code and days is the lookback trading days with a max of 90. This adds crucial semantic meaning that allows correct invocation, and it also clarifies the limit on days.

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 returns margin trading balance, margin buying, and net buying for margin-eligible stocks. It uses a specific verb and resource and adds a scoping constraint (仅两融标的), distinguishing it from generic quote or kline tools. This is a clear, specific purpose.

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 when to use this tool—when margin trading data is needed—but gives no explicit guidance on alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. The constraint '仅两融标的' hints at eligibility but doesn't guide selection.

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