指数数据查询（同花顺问财）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the data source (同花顺问财) and the natural-language input style. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, response format, or any limitations such as data coverage or query constraints.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core scope and examples are front-loaded, and the data-source URL is useful supplementary context.

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?

The description covers the tool's domain, examples, input style, and source, which is adequate for a simple query tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from describing what the returned data looks like and how page/limit affect results.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the natural-language aspect already in the query parameter and adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb '查询' and the specific resource '指数行情' with concrete examples (上证指数、沪深300、创业板指、恒生指数、纳斯达克指数). It also lists the kinds of data covered (涨跌幅/成交量/点位), which distinguishes it from sibling data-query tools by domain.

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 intended usage—querying index market data via natural language—is implied by the resource scope. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like query_market_data, nor any 'when not to use' statement.

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