行情数据查询（股票/ETF/指数）（同花顺问财）

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the data source (同花顺问财) and input modality (natural language), but does not mention limitations, error behavior, pagination defaults, or whether results are delayed or real-time in a strict sense.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose and returned data fields, and contains no redundant filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read tool, the description covers the essentials: what data is returned and how to ask. However, given the large sibling set and no output schema/annotations, it would benefit from stating boundaries versus related query_* tools and the expected response shape.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds that queries are natural-language questions, but does not meaningfully elaborate on page or limit semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('获取实时行情') and a concrete resource set (stocks, ETFs, indices), and lists the returned fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like query_index_data or query_fund_data, which overlap in scope.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings, what types of questions are appropriate, or any exclusions. The only hint is that natural language queries are accepted.

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