A股涨停股池

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (retrieve all limit-up stocks) but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as: whether results are paginated, what happens if no stocks meet the criteria, how the default date is determined, any rate limits, or the source of data. This is a significant gap for a data-fetching tool.

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, short sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with essential information. Perfectly concise.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the output looks like or any contextual details. It does not mention return values, error handling, or data freshness. For a financial data tool, this lack of context undermines an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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%: both parameters (date, limit) have descriptions in the input schema detailing format and range. The tool's description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, baseline score of 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 identifies the tool as retrieving all limit-up stocks from China A-share markets (Shanghai and Shenzhen). The verb '获取' (get) and resource '涨停股票' (limit-up stocks) are specific. Among siblings, there is a similar tool 'stock_zt_pool_strong_em', so the description implicitly distinguishes by targeting 'all limit-up stocks' vs possibly a subset. However, it does not explicitly differentiate, and the term '涨停' could be more precisely defined as daily price limit hit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'stock_zt_pool_strong_em' or when to avoid it. There is no mention of prerequisites, recommended contexts, or alternatives. The description simply states what it does without usage direction.

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