市场待机快照（大盘指数+资金面）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key side effect: the tool fetches and writes data to disk ('拉取并落盘'), and it mentions real-time index moves and comparison against the previous trading day. It does not explain caching defaults, refresh semantics behind the force parameter, or failure/rate-limit behavior, but the core persistence behavior is transparent.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the action and scope, follows with a compact itemized list of data categories, and closes with a specific use case. It contains no filler, repetition, or irrelevant context, and every clause adds operational 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 tool with zero required parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is collected, that data is persisted, and the intended use case. The main gap is the lack of explicit positioning against snapshot-read, market-overview, or capital-flow siblings, but the structured schema and output schema reduce the burden on the description.

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?

There is only one parameter, force, and the input schema already describes it fully with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies: the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '拉取并落盘' (fetch and persist) a broad market snapshot, and enumerates the exact components: indices, sector movers, turnover, margin balance, north/south capital, ETF preferences, and national-team proxies. It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like market_overview or market_snapshot_read.

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 gives an explicit use context ('用于个股速览待机页', for the individual-stock quick-view standby page), which implies when this snapshot is appropriate. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as market_overview, capital_flows_snapshot, or market_snapshot_read, nor does it mention exclusions or complementary tools.

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