A股龙虎榜统计

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states what data is retrieved without mentioning data source (Sina), update frequency, pagination, or response format. It also does not disclose constraints like allowed days values, which are already captured in the schema.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('获取') and clearly specifies the resource and market. There is no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain what the returned statistics look like, when data is available, or how to interpret results. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context about the response format, but it doesn't, leaving clear gaps for an agent.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters ('days' with allowed values and 'limit' with range), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The word '统计' loosely aligns with the 'days' parameter for time windows, but no extra detail is given.

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 with a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('龙虎榜个股上榜统计数据'), and specifies the market scope (上证, 深证). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_prices or stock_news by focusing on Dragon-Tiger List statistics.

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 such as stock_zt_pool_em or stock_indicators_a. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons. The only hint is the 'days' parameter in the schema, but it is not referenced in the description.

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