block_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the data retrieved but doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the purpose and key details. It's front-loaded with the main action ('获取大宗交易数据') and includes essential specifics without unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately sized for its function.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is retrieved but lacks context on behavioral aspects, usage scenarios, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail on what the tool returns would be helpful for completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (code, end_date, start_date) with their descriptions and types. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or additional constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 what the tool does: '获取大宗交易数据' (get block trade data) with specific details like '成交价格、成交量、买卖双方营业部等详细信息' (transaction price, volume, buyer/seller departments, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('大宗交易数据'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stock_data' or 'margin_trade' that might also provide financial data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'stock_data' for general stock information or 'margin_trade' for margin trading data, nor does it specify use cases or exclusions for block trade data specifically.

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