公共行情SQL刷新

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that this is a networked operation, that it writes/refreshes data into a shared SQL database, and that certain modes are heavy workloads. However, it does not mention failure behavior, rate limits, or whether repeated calls are safe/idempotent, which would make it fully 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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for core purpose, one sentence enumerating modes, and one sentence for usage policy. Every sentence earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists and all four parameters are documented in the schema, the description covers the necessary operational context: network access policy, mode semantics, and workload constraints. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining what each mode actually does (e.g., full is lightweight index+name refresh, prime is a heavy full-market refresh) and by framing the codes parameter in context. It stops short of describing edge cases or detailed interactions between parameters, so it does not reach 5.

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 action ('联网补齐'/online refresh) and a precise resource (daily K-line data for stocks/indices into the shared market_data.db). It also clearly differentiates this tool from siblings by declaring itself the '唯一联网入口' (the only online entry point), making its role unmistakable.

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 explicit usage rules: all upper-level tasks must first query the database and only call this tool when data is missing; direct connections to gtimg/Sina/akshare are prohibited. It also enumerates each mode and when each should be used, including the heavy 'prime' mode being restricted to after-market low-peak periods.

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