get_industry_spot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns detailed indicators, but it does not specify what those indicators are, pagination behavior, or rate limits. This is adequate given the annotation coverage but not rich.

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, concise sentence that states the action (获取), the resource (行业板块实时行情), and the expected output (详细指标) without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy 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 one well-documented parameter, a read-only annotation, and a simple purpose, the description is nearly sufficient. However, the absence of an output schema and the vague reference to '详细指标' leaves the agent uncertain about the exact return structure and fields, which is a notable gap.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, clearly describing accepted symbol formats (name or code). The tool description does not repeat or enhance this information, so it adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get) and identifies the resource '行业板块实时行情' (industry sector real-time quotes), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like kline, constituents, or list tools. It also states the output is '详细指标' (detailed indicators), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools such as get_industry_minute_kline, get_industry_kline, or get_concept_spot. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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