A股强势股池

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the data type and market scope; it does not explain what '强势股池' means, how the data is computed or filtered, what default behavior occurs when date is omitted, or what the response contains. The schema documents parameter defaults, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is so terse that it sacrifices behavioral and contextual detail—these are penalized in other dimensions.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a highly similar sibling tool, the description leaves important gaps: the definition of '强势股池', the expected return structure, and how to choose between this and stock_zt_pool_em. An agent could select the wrong tool or be uncertain about what data to expect.

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 both parameters (date and limit) are already fully documented with formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific explanation, but this is acceptable at the baseline level because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('中国A股市场(上证、深证)的强势股池数据'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling stock_zt_pool_em, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never explains how '强势股池' differs from the related stock_zt_pool_em or any other stock pool tool, nor does it mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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