gangtise_top_holders

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authorization needs, or rate limits. However, it only states the query action without any behavioral information. It does not indicate whether the tool is safe or destructive, nor does it explain any side effects.

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 short and to the point, consisting of one sentence after a date context note. The date context, while necessary for the system, is not directly part of the tool's purpose but is placed in the description. Overall, it is concise with no wasted words, though the date prefix could be separated.

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 has no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It only says 'query' without mentioning the result format, data structure, or typical response. For a tool with 6 parameters and multiple optional filters, the description lacks completeness about the output and usage scenario.

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, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little new meaning beyond echoing the holderType options. It does not clarify the relationship between parameters or provide additional context beyond the schema definitions.

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 '查询前十大股东或前十大流通股东', which specifies the verb (query) and resource (top ten shareholders or top ten tradable shareholders). It directly indicates what the tool does and distinguishes from the many sibling tools that deal with financial data but not specifically top holders.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The only hint is the '必填' comment in the parameter description, but no explicit usage guidelines.

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