Dragon Tiger Inst

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description only states what data is returned, leaving the agent unaware of potential constraints or behaviors.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key purpose and parameters. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating required and optional parameters more clearly, but it remains efficient.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, required/optional parameters, and return content. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are gaps for a tool that might involve rate limits or authentication. Overall, it meets minimum viability but is not comprehensive.

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 both parameters described. The description adds context by explicitly marking trade_date as required and ts_code as optional, and it explains the return fields (buy/sell/net amounts, reasons). This goes beyond the schema, which only provides type and format for trade_date.

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 tool's purpose: institutional transaction details of the 'dragon and tiger' list (top_inst). It identifies the required and optional parameters and outlines the return content (buy/sell/net amounts, reasons). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover general stock data or other financial metrics.

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 mentions required and optional parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. There is no discussion of context, prerequisites, or alternative tools for similar queries. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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