个股侧面消息

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation and lists the returned data scopes, which is useful. But it does not mention data recency, historical depth, source limitations, or any constraints on coverage beyond the implied A-share context.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before listing examples. Every element contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 simple two-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the purpose ('印证数据'), and the main data categories. It does not discuss usage timing or alternatives, but those gaps are already captured in the usage dimension.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'symbol' and 'market' with their meanings and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed given the high schema coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 ('获取') and a clear resource ('个股...数据'), enumerating concrete data categories: news, insider trades, shareholder count changes, and top-ten shareholder changes. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, but the insider-behavior focus distinguishes it from generic news or quote 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 phrase '内部人员行为印证数据' implies the tool is meant for corroborating stock-level signals with insider behavior, giving some usage context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with alternatives such as stock_news_global or individual_info.

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