get_block_trade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds context about date range and symbol optionality but does not disclose details about output format or any side effects. This is adequate given the annotations, but no additional behavioral details are provided beyond what is already indicated.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, a strategy hint, an example, and a bulleted list of parameters. Every element serves a purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately usable.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all input parameters, provides usage strategy, and includes a concrete example. For a read-only retrieval tool with three optional parameters, the description is complete and self-contained.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in input schema), so the description must compensate. It provides brief but clear explanations for each parameter: 'symbol: Stock symbol (optional)', 'start: Start date YYYY-MM-DD', 'end: End date YYYY-MM-DD'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's defaults and titles, though it could include more constraints (e.g., date format exactly as shown).

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 'Get block trade (大宗交易) records' and includes a strategy and example that differentiate it from sibling tools like get_trades. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'block trade' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 strategy 'Leave symbol empty for all market block trades' provides clear guidance on when to use the tool with or without a symbol. The example shows typical usage with date parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for other trade types.

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