Scan Limit Up Stocks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the return envelope (count, results, error), but it does not mention data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral edge cases beyond an error field.

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 compact and well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose and threshold, then gives the return contract in a clear block. No words are 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?

For a zero-parameter scanning tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is scanned, the threshold, and the return shape. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying what 'today' means in trading-day terms or by pointing to the opposite sibling, but those are minor gaps.

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 zero parameters, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter ambiguity; the threshold detail in the description describes the result filter rather than call arguments.

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 action (scan), the resource (today's limit-up stock list), and the exact threshold (涨跌幅 >= 9.9%). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like scan_limit_down_stocks.

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 implies when to use it: when you need today's stocks with gains of at least 9.9%. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so the routing guidance is left mostly to inference.

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