get_market_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable transparency by enumerating the composite response contents, making clear that the tool returns multiple data categories in a single call. It does not disclose potential latency or market limitations, but the added scope context is useful.

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, front-loaded with the composite label and resource name, followed by a colon-separated list of data categories. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the main data categories, giving the agent a clear expectation of the response. Minor gaps exist, such as not mentioning the includeHK parameter or historical data type, but the description is sufficiently complete for an overview tool with a simple schema.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional boolean parameter includeHK, which is clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific label '复合' and explicitly lists the data categories returned (major index quotes, industry/concept sector TOP10, advance/decline statistics, northbound capital, limit-up/down counts, sector anomalies). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by presenting it as an aggregated overview tool.

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 usage as a one-shot market overview but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over dedicated sibling tools like get_market_fund_flow or get_northbound_realtime. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives.

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