Sector Analyzer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the sorting action and does not mention data source, market scope, whether negative changes are included, refresh frequency, or any operational constraints. The agent knows what the tool does but not how it behaves in practice.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose (industry sector price-change ranking) and is appropriately sized for the tool's low complexity.

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 relatively simple, and the output schema (present) plus rich parameter schemas already cover return values and parameter usage. However, the description lacks usage context, such as when to select this over sector_flow_tracker, and does not clarify whether '涨跌幅' refers to daily, weekly, or another period. This leaves some ambiguity but is not critically incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (top_n, min_change_pct) have clear descriptions covering default values and filtering behavior. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already documents semantics adequately, so the 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 clearly states the tool performs ranking of industry sectors by price change percentage ('行业板块涨跌幅排序'). This is a specific verb/resource combination that conveys the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling tool sector_flow_tracker (which tracks capital flows, not price performance).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as sector_flow_tracker or a_stock_screener could be confused with this one, but no usage context, exclusions, or recommended conditions are given. The agent must infer when to invoke this tool.

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