Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_ths_indexC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the input schema. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the tool is read-only.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, no redundant information. However, the Chinese phrasing could be slightly more streamlined, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the simplicity of the tool (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on the return format, pagination, or example usage, which would improve completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value. It reiterates that users can query by index code, market type, and index type, but does not provide significant extra context beyond the schema descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of Tonghuashun concept and industry indices, and lists queryable fields (code, market type, index type). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_ths_daily or get_ths_member.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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

• get_dc_dailyB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Describes output fields but lacks disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. Minimal behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Three sentences: purpose, included fields, supported types. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential info.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Describes output fields and sector types but omits parameter precedence (trade_date vs range), output format, and frequency. With no output schema or annotations, more context would help an AI agent use the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with format info. Description adds value by listing included data fields and sector types, but fails to clarify interplay between trade_date and start/end_date, or that no parameters are required. Missing usage details for parameter combinations.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly states tool gets sector market data from East Money, listing included fields (open, close, change, volume) and supported sector types (concept, industry, region). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_dc_index and get_dc_member.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites provided. The description simply states what it does without usage context.

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

• get_dc_indexB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, and the description only implies read-only via '获取' (get). It does not disclose safety, side effects, rate limits, or any behavioral constraints beyond a basic retrieval operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two efficient sentences: first states main purpose, second lists key data fields. No redundancy, front-loaded, and every word contributes value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description provides basic context about retrieved fields but omits parameter relationships (e.g., how ts_code and name interact). With no output schema, some additional parameter usage hints would improve completeness for this 5-parameter tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Input schema covers all 5 parameters with full descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes returned data types. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves East Money concept sector information and lists included data types (rise/fall, leading stocks, market cap, turnover). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ths_index (THS index) and get_dc_daily (daily data).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance on when to use this vs. siblings such as get_dc_daily or get_dc_member. The description focuses on what the tool does without context about filter combinations or appropriate use cases.

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

• get_ths_dailyB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the data included (open, close, change, volume) but omits critical behavior like read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or data range restrictions. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return format, pagination (if any), and data behavior. It only lists data fields, leaving the UI or agent to infer the rest. Incomplete for practical use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with all 4 parameters described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists included data fields. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it fetches THS sector index daily data (开盘价、收盘价、涨跌幅、成交量), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ths_index (index list) and get_ths_member (members). The verb '获取' and resource '同花顺板块指数行情数据' are specific.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or any prerequisites. Sibling tools are listed but not compared. Usage is implied by the data type (daily data), but no constraints or exclusions are mentioned.

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

• get_ths_memberA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, response size, or pagination. The current description lacks these details, providing only basic functionality.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second elaborates on the two usage modes.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple and lacks an output schema. The description covers the input and purpose but does not specify the output format (e.g., fields returned). Adequate but leaves gaps.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning by clarifying the two query modes: sector-to-stocks and stock-to-sectors. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool retrieves the constituent stock list of Tonghuashun concept sectors, specifying two usage modes: by sector code or by stock code. It distinguishes from siblings like get_ths_daily and get_ths_index by focusing on member composition.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explains the tool's functionality but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied from context.

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

• get_dc_memberA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses historical support and dual query modes, adding value. But it omits details on data freshness, pagination, authentication, or potential latency. The behavior is adequately implied for a read operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Three terse sentences cover essential functionality without redundancy. Each sentence contributes unique information: the purpose, two primary use cases, and historical support. No filler or unnecessary words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Despite the clear purpose, the description lacks critical details: it does not specify the return format or fields, nor what happens when no parameters are given (0 required). For a list tool, this is a significant gap. Return format is especially important since no output schema exists.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in Chinese. The tool description adds value by explaining the semantic roles of ts_code (query constituents of a sector) and con_code (query sector of a stock), and clarifies that trade_date is for historical snapshots. This goes beyond the schema alone.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly states the tool retrieves East Money sector constituent stock data, supporting two query modes (by sector index or stock code) and historical lookups. This verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dc_daily and get_ths_member.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Description provides clear context on when to use the tool (query constituents by sector, or find sector by stock) and mentions historical support. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with get_ths_member, which serves a similar purpose for a different data source.

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