get_smart_score_rank

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states that it 'gets ranking data'. It does not disclose whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or what the output contains. Since the output schema exists, the burden is partially reduced, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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: one line for purpose, one line for parameter format, and one example. It is well-structured and front-loads the key information. Every sentence is necessary and no word is wasted.

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 parameter and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers how to call the tool but lacks context on why to use it, such as common use cases or differences from similar tools like 'get_smart_score'. The example helps but does not fully compensate for missing usage context.

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 for the single parameter 'stock_code' has no description (0% coverage). The description provides critical information: it explains the format (code with exchange suffix, e.g., '300750.SZ') and gives an example. This significantly improves the parameter's usability.

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 it retrieves smart score ranking data for a stock, using the Chinese phrase '获取个股智能评分排名数据'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_smart_score', which might return the raw score rather than ranking, leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_smart_score'. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or situations where this tool is preferred. The example only shows a call without context.

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