Limit Stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only statistical lookup and includes an error field in the return dictionary, which signals possible failure handling. However, it does not state data freshness, source assumptions, or whether any market data preprocessing is required.

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 summary line is short, front-loaded, and specifies exactly what the tool returns. The subsequent return schema is compact and directly useful, with no filler or redundant prose.

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?

For a zero-parameter aggregate statistics tool, the description plus return schema covers what the agent will receive. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly route users to sibling tools or clarify the data window beyond '当日', but overall the necessary information for calling this tool is present.

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 the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description appropriately focuses on the output.

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 a specific resource: daily limit-up/limit-down stock counts and percentage ranges. It is clear that this is an aggregate statistics tool, and its scope is implicitly distinct from sibling scanning tools, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 does not say when to use limit_stats versus scan_limit_up_stocks, scan_limit_down_stocks, or the other sibling tools. An agent can infer the intended use from the word '统计', but there is no explicit guidance about when this aggregate tool should be chosen instead of a detailed scanner.

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