get_trading_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the time range (1990 to present) and the fact that it returns all trading dates, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention return format or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is minor.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and result. No unnecessary words or repetition, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (all trading dates from 1990 to present) and the scope. This is complete for the tool's simplicity, similar to the high calibration example.

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 description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description need not add parameter details because there are none, and the baseline for tools with 0 parameters is 4.

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 the A-share trading calendar and specifies the scope (all trading dates from 1990 to present). It uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (交易日历), and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like market quotes or klines.

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?

Usage is implied by the description—if an agent needs A-share trading dates, this tool is the obvious choice. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provide exclusions. Given the simplicity and uniqueness of the tool, implied usage is adequate.

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