融资融券余额

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves market-level margin account data and requires no stock code, but it does not mention data granularity, timeframe, update frequency, or return format. This is acceptable for a simple zero-parameter read tool but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key differentiator about no stock code. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter data retrieval tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotation context, it lacks detail about what exact fields or time period the returned data covers, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this tool satisfies a specific request.

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 already fully describes this. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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' (get) and a concrete resource: market-level margin trading balance data (two-margin account information). It explicitly notes '无需指定股票代码' (no need to specify a stock code), which distinguishes it from stock-specific tools in the large sibling list.

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: this tool is for market-level margin balance data, not individual stock data. It implies when to use it (when market-wide margin data is needed) but does not name alternatives or give explicit exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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