get_market_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is formatted as a Markdown table, but does not mention data freshness, limitations, or auth requirements. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise with a clear purpose, structured Args/Returns/Examples sections, and no superfluous content. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality. It does not elaborate on edge cases or error handling, but for a straightforward data retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning by explaining the parameter as '股票代码，包含交易所代码，如 300750.SZ'. This clarifies the format beyond the schema's bare title.

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 stock market performance data including comparisons with the broader market and industry sectors. It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('市场表现数据'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_real_time_data or get_kline by emphasizing comparison aspects.

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 provides an example and parameter details but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or its prerequisites. The context signals show many similar get_ tools, but no guidance is given on selection criteria.

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