get_us_code_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the data volume (8000+ codes) and the availability of market filtering, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as response format or potential performance implications, though the bar is lower given the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the primary purpose, includes a key detail (8000+), and lists the filtering options. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 simple list-retrieval tool with two optional parameters, the description combined with the schema covers the essential aspects: scope (all US stocks), filtering by market, and the 'simple' format option. Since there is no output schema, the return format is not described, but the name and purpose make it inferable. Sibling tools provide differentiation, and the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description merely restates the market filter concept, which the schema already documents. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: retrieving the complete US stock code list (8000+), with explicit mention of market filtering by NASDAQ/NYSE/AMEX. It uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (全部美股代码列表), and clearly differentiates from sibling quote-focused tools like get_all_us_quotes and get_us_quotes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when needing US stock codes, optionally filtered by market. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the purpose is stated well enough that an agent would not confuse it with quote tools. The market filter parameter adds practical usage guidance.

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