get_hk_stock_realtime_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format (Markdown) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. The description adds minimal value beyond basic functionality.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections with essential details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and sibling tools present, it lacks guidance on usage and behavioral context, leaving gaps for an agent to operate effectively in this server's ecosystem.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'code' is a Hong Kong stock code and provides a concrete example ('hk.00700' for Tencent), clarifying format and semantics that the schema alone does not cover.

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 ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('港股实时行情数据' meaning 'Hong Kong stock real-time market data'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_hk_historical_k_data' (historical data) and 'get_hk_stock_basic_info' (basic info), but doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the text.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'get_us_stock_realtime_data' for US stocks or 'get_hk_stock_analysis' for analytical data, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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