个股实时报价

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it does so by labeling the call as a read-only '快照' and by revealing the data-source behavior '东财行情优先，新浪回退'. It does not mention latency or failure modes, but for a simple quote fetch this is adequate 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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the purpose and uses a colon list for returned fields, finishing with the source fallback. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter, single-stock snapshot tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficient: it names the returned metrics, indicates the data-source strategy, and needs no further explanation of return shape. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%: market and symbol are already documented with values and examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, '获取个股实时报价快照', and enumerates the exact quote fields returned. This clearly marks it as a real-time A-share quote snapshot tool and separates it from fund, macro, and technical-analysis siblings.

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 intended use is implied by '实时报价快照' and the field list, so an agent can infer it should be called when a current individual stock quote is needed. However, it never contrasts itself with sibling quote/indicator tools such as stock_indicators_hk, stock_indicators_us, or market_prices, and it does not state when not to use it.

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