get_a_share_quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds limited behavioral context by specifying that it returns 40+ fields of information, but it does not discuss rate limits, errors, or any special constraints beyond what annotations provide. It is consistent with annotations and adds a modest amount of value.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the core function and key return fields. No filler or redundancy. It is perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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's simplicity (one parameter, clear schema, read-only annotation), the description is nearly complete. It mentions the essential return fields (latest price, change, volume, P/E, P/B) and the resource scope (A-shares/indices). It does not enumerate all 40+ fields, but that would be excessive for the description. Minor gaps like index code format are covered by the schema example, so the description is adequate.

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%: the 'codes' parameter has a clear description with an example (["sh600519", "sz000858"]). The tool description does not add any further semantic detail about the parameters, so the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches real-time A-share/index quotes with a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('A股/指数实时行情'). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_all_a_share_quotes or get_quotes_by_query, but the focus on specific codes is implied by the schema.

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 alternatives. It does not mention that this is for specific codes rather than all A-shares, nor does it reference sibling tools like get_all_a_share_quotes or get_quotes_by_query. The usage context is only implicit from the name and schema.

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