get_hot_rank

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds parameter details but does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, or the meaning of 'search' vs 'hot'. It adds some value but not extensive beyond annotations.

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 with a clear heading, strategy, example, and parameter list. The use of XML tags adds structure, though it is non-standard. No wasted sentences.

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 with three optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and parameter choices but omits details on the two rank_type options and does not explain the return format (though output schema exists). It is adequate but not thorough.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It lists possible values for market and rank_type, but does not explain the semantics of 'hot' vs 'search' or validate the formats. Partially compensates but incomplete.

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 it gets a hot stock ranking and strategy says 'Use to find trending stocks'. However, it only mentions 'hot' while the tool also supports a 'search' rank_type, which is not explained, causing slight ambiguity.

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 tag provides a clear usage hint ('find trending stocks'), but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_industry_rank or get_limit_up_pool) or when not to use it.

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