全市场异动扫描

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that the tool scans real-time A-share anomalies, which is useful, but it does not disclose the return shape, whether results are a list, or any data-source caveats. There is no contradiction with annotations because no annotations exist.

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?

One compact sentence states the action, market scope, and data type with examples. No filler or redundant framing.

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 single-optional-parameter tool the description is largely adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-value expectations. Agents must assume the tool returns the detected anomalies without being told the format or scope of results.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter and its allowed values. The description's examples ('火箭发射、大笔买入、快速反弹') are a subset of the schema values, adding little beyond the schema; it does not clarify the misleading parameter name 'symbol' further than the schema already does.

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 a specific verb ('扫描') and a specific resource ('A 股市场实时的异动信号'), with examples that make the domain clear. It does not explicitly differentiate this scanner from siblings like market_overview or limit_up_scan, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use when real-time A-share anomaly signals are needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives. With many market-related sibling tools, an agent has to infer when this tool beats market_overview or limit_up_scan.

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