A股涨停股池

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only restates the basic function. It does not disclose that the '所有' (all) result is subject to the limit parameter (30-100), nor does it mention data source, return structure, or other behavioral characteristics.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose without any redundant words or filler. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with no output schema and a close sibling (stock_zt_pool_strong_em). It does not clarify what data is returned (e.g., stock codes, prices), does not differentiate from the sibling, and the claim of '所有' (all) is contradicted by the limit parameter's cap on returned count.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (date and limit), providing baseline value. The description itself adds no extra parameter context, but it does not need to since the schema is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (中国A股市场涨停股票) with market scope (上证/深证), clearly stating what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling stock_zt_pool_strong_em, but the 'all' qualifier and market scope provide moderate 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparison to the similar stock_zt_pool_strong_em tool, leaving the user to infer usage.

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