个股档案信息

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the data scope and sources (东方财富+雪球) and implies a read-only fetch, but it does not mention output formatting, error behavior, data freshness, or quirks of combining two sources. This is reasonable but not thorough for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 that front-loads the main action and resource before listing content categories. It contains no filler, though the long comma-separated enumeration makes it slightly dense; still, every part adds useful 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 two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential scope well. It could mention how market interacts with symbol or note the multi-source merge implications, but these are minor given the available structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both market and symbol parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('获取') and a precise resource (个股综合档案数据), and enumerates distinctive content types (股本股东, 十大股东, 高管变动, 历史分红) that set it apart from sibling tools like stock_quote or individual_hist. An agent can tell this is the comprehensive individual-stock archive tool without opening schemas.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as stock_quote, financial_indicators, or individual_hist. The intended use for comprehensive archival data is only implied from the content list; no exclusions or alternative routing criteria are provided, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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