A股强势股池

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it fetches data, omitting any details about default date behavior, return format, meaning of 'strong', or limitations. This is a complete lack of transparency beyond the 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, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It is efficiently front-loaded and concise, earning its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose without any fluff.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal and incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter behavior context, and differentiation from similar stock pool tools, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it effectively.

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 already describes both parameters (date and limit) with formats and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it retrieves strong stock pool data for the Chinese A-share market (SSE/SZSE), using a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as stock_zt_pool_em, which may also relate to stock pools, so it lacks full distinction.

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 like stock_zt_pool_em or stock_lhb_ggtj_sina. The description gives no use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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