Margin Analysis

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'analysis' and indicates the output scope; it does not state read-only behavior, data coverage, how period actually behaves, or any other operational constraints. The word '分析' weakly implies a non-mutating lookup, but that is not sufficient disclosure.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the tool domain and then states the two output scopes. There is no redundant wording, and every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the schema covers parameter semantics, so a long description is not necessary. Yet without annotations and with only a one-line description, the definition lacks behavioral context and alternative-selection guidance, making it minimally complete rather than fully self-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 already documents both parameters with defaults, null handling, allowed values, and the 30-trading-day caveat, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds only the high-level market-vs-individual distinction that maps to the code parameter, so it provides no significant extra parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact domain (融资融券/margin trading) and the action (analysis), and explicitly scopes output to either market summary or individual stock detail. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools such as sector_analyzer or north_flow_tracker, which cover different resources.

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 two usage modes are clearly conveyed—market summary vs. individual stock detail—and the schema reinforces that omitting code returns the market-level result. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to select this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the choice is only implied by the domain.

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