get_dc_member

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.