市场概况总览

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that data is real-time, sector-scoped, and defaults to all A-shares, but it does not address rate limits, data-source latency, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. The second sentence provides the only relevant behavioral nuance and earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple: two optional parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema exists, so return details need not be described. The description covers market scope, sector list, and default behavior, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema with defaults and allowed values, so the schema covers the semantics. The description's note about omitting 板块 largely restates the schema default, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 leads with a specific verb ('获取') and a concrete resource ('各板块实时行情'), then enumerates the exact sector scopes: 沪深京A股, 创业板, 科创板, ST, 新股. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from single-stock or fund-level tools.

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 one useful invocation rule: if 板块 is omitted, all A-shares are returned. However, it does not mention alternative tools or give explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so the usage context is mostly implied rather than stated.

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