get_board_changes

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description complements this by specifying that the output is a board-level summary (rather than raw stock-level data) and includes examples like sharp rises/falls. This adds useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose any additional limitations or side effects (which are minimal given the read-only nature).

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 entire description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the purpose, the data grain (board-level summary), and examples of the change types. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only annotations, the description provides all necessary context: it specifies today's timeframe, the scope (board-level), and the nature of the data (abnormal moves summary). This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool's result.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details. No further explanation is needed.

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 retrieves today's board/sector change details and returns a board-level summary (sharp rises, sharp falls, etc.). The verb '获取' (get) and the specific resource '当日板块异动详情' make the purpose unmistakable, distinguishing it from related tools like get_stock_changes.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving current-day board-level abnormal moves, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for basic usage, but no explicit guidance about choosing this vs. sibling tools is given.

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