get_current_count_changes

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the output is a formatted Markdown table, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no side effects) or disclose any authentication or rate-limiting requirements. The description lacks critical transparency for an agent.

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 short, with a purpose statement and return format, kept to one sentence in Chinese and one in English. It is front-loaded with the core action. The example is minimal but valid. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 lack of parameters and presence of an output schema, the description should summarize the output content. It only specifies 'Markdown table format' without detailing columns or data types. This leaves the agent unaware of what the table contains, which is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning since none exist, but it does not detract from the 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 '获取当日异动对数据对比情况' (get today's unusual change pair comparison), which indicates a specific verb and resource. However, the term '异动对' is ambiguous and not clearly defined, making it unclear whether this applies to stocks, plates, or other entities. It does not adequately distinguish from siblings like 'get_current_plate_changes' or 'get_intraday_changes'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints about selecting this tool over its siblings.

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