get_concept_spot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns '详细指标' (detailed indicators), but it does not specify what those indicators are or any additional behavioral traits such as output format or error handling. This is adequate but not richly disclosed.

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, direct sentence that clearly states the action and outcome. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what '详细指标' includes to help the agent anticipate the return value. It is vague on the actual fields (e.g., price, change, volume). The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, so the gap is moderate.

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 description for the sole parameter 'symbol' is complete, explaining it accepts a concept sector name or code with examples. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage, no additional compensation 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves real-time quotes for concept sectors and returns detailed indicators. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_concept_list (listing sectors), get_concept_constituents (constituent stocks), and get_concept_kline (historical candles).

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 use for current concept sector market data via the term '实时行情', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like kline or minute-kline tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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