get_top_brokers

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

The description discloses that the tool returns only top 10 brokers, is restricted to Hong Kong, and that days_before=0 means realtime data. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or what the output format looks like. The disclosed behaviors are helpful but incomplete.

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—two short lines that combine purpose and a parameter hint. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be considered under-specified; while no words are wasted, the brevity sacrifices completeness. It earns a 4 for efficiency but not a 5 due to missing contextual details.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide enough context for agents to use it confidently. It fails to specify the output structure (e.g., broker names, IDs, buy/sell breakdown), how to interpret the ranking, or any limitations beyond 'HK only'. The description is incomplete for confident invocation.

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 must clarify parameters. It explains 'days_before: 0=realtime', adding meaning beyond the schema's default value. However, the required 'code' parameter is left completely unexplained—no hint that it is likely a stock code or broker identifier. The description adds partial value but fails to cover all parameters.

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 the top 10 buy/sell brokers, limited to Hong Kong ('HK only'). The addition of the Chinese translation reinforces the purpose. Although no explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' is used, the phrase 'Top-10 buy/sell brokers' unambiguously indicates a listing operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other financial data.

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 is provided on when to use or avoid this tool. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other broker-related tools like get_holding_changes or get_institutional_holdings. Agents must infer usage solely from the tool name and the breif description.

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