美股关键指标

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

没有任何注解，描述承担全部行为披露责任。'获取'一词暗示只读操作，但未说明返回的数据形态、是否含历史报告期、数据时效性或任何访问限制。这仅提供了最基本的行为信号，远不足以让代理预判工具行为。

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?

单句、无冗余，信息前置，符合简洁标准。但正因为过于简短，丢失了对调用有价值的细节，所以未达到满分的平衡度。

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?

虽然工具参数简单，但缺少注解和输出 schema，描述必须提供足够上下文。当前描述只说获取某类指标，未说明返回内容、时间范围或指标类别，代理调用后难以判断结果是否符合预期，因此完整性不足。

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?

输入模式只有一个 symbol 参数，schema 描述已给出'美股字母代码，如 AAPL'，覆盖率达100%，因此基线为3。描述没有在 schema 之外添加任何参数语义，但也没有遗漏必要信息。

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?

描述以明确的动词'获取'指向特定资源'美股市场的股票财务报告关键指标'，并通过'美股市场'与港股等兄弟工具形成地理区分。但没有列出具体指标类型或说明与 financial_indicators 等相似工具的边界，因此未达到完美的5分。

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?

描述完全没有说明何时应使用此工具、何时不应使用，也没有提及替代工具（如 stock_indicators_hk 用于港股）。对于有大量财经相关兄弟工具的环境，这种缺失可能导致代理无法正确路由。

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