XTQuantAI

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 states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of the returned date list. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks completeness for effective use: it doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, date format), potential errors, or how it differs from sibling tools. With no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short.

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?

The description implies a parameter for specifying the market ('指定市场的' - for the specified market), which aligns with the single parameter 'market' in the input schema. Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema providing details like the default value 'SH' and an example. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already documents, meeting the baseline score for high schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取指定市场的交易日期列表' translates to 'Get the trading date list for the specified market.' It uses a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('交易日期列表' - trading date list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_history_market_data' or 'get_latest_market_data', which might also involve date-related data but focus on market data rather than date lists.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_history_market_data' or 'get_full_market_data', which could potentially overlap in date-related contexts. The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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