analyze_stock

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing the exact data components returned (K-line with indicators, capital flow, history trends, northbound holdings, dividends). It does not mention potential performance costs or API call patterns, but given the annotation already signals safety, the added detail is valuable.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the composite nature with 【复合】 and efficiently lists all included data types. No waste or redundancy.

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 composite tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of enumerating the available data categories. It could potentially explain return format or pagination, but for an overview tool this level of detail is sufficient. The tool's complexity is mitigated by the clear list of contents.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters (market, period, symbol) beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 composite individual stock analysis, returning K-line with indicators (MA/MACD/KDJ/RSI/BOLL), capital flow, history trends, northbound holdings, and dividends. It uses a specific verb '一次性返回' (returns at once) and a clear resource '个股' (individual stock), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on single data types.

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 specifies the tool is '适合快速全面了解一只股票' (suitable for quickly and comprehensively understanding a stock), providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the use case is well implied.

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