获取股票信息

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 mentions the limitation on cryptocurrency but does not disclose what specific information is returned, whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple getter, this is a notable gap, making the behavioral profile unclear.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it does not. The description is minimal and leaves out critical context such as what 'basic information' includes, the expected format of the symbol (e.g., prefix requirements), and how the tool behaves with invalid inputs. Given the large set of sibling tools, this lack of context makes it hard for an agent to know if this tool is the right choice.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: both 'symbol' and 'market' have descriptions, and 'market' explicitly lists supported values and excludes crypto. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: '根据股票代码和市场获取股票基本信息' (get basic stock information based on stock code and market). It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly excludes cryptocurrency, which helps distinguish it from crypto-related siblings like okx_prices and binance_ai_report. However, it does not differentiate among the many stock-related tools (e.g., stock_prices, stock_news), leaving some ambiguity about what '基本信息' includes.

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 implies usage when basic stock information is needed, and gives an explicit when-not by stating '不支持加密货币' (does not support cryptocurrency). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_prices or stock_news, and does not mention any prerequisites or context for selecting this tool.

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