get_current_plate_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that data is for the current day, sorted descending, and returns a Markdown table. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 with one clear sentence for purpose, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. No redundant information, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameter, return format (Markdown table), ordering, and examples. It lacks error handling details but is complete enough for a simple data retrieval 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 description adds meaning to the 'page_size' parameter beyond the schema by explaining it controls the number of returned entries (默认10条). Schema has no description field for the parameter, so the description compensates effectively.

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 retrieves current-day plate changes data, including rise/fall percentages, main capital flow, and abnormal stocks, sorted by total abnormal count descending. It specifies the verb '获取' and resource '板块异动数据', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_plate_fund_flow or get_plate_quotation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to avoid it or provide comparisons with sibling tools like get_plate_fund_flow. The usage context is implied but not clearly stated.

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