get_sector_ranking

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it gets 'today's' data, implying current-day ranking, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, or limitations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the main action and its purpose. Every clause adds value: getting the ranking and interpreting it for rotation. No redundant or unnecessary words, making it highly 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 low parameter count (2 optional), high schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the output format or expected results (e.g., list of sectors with change percentages). Since there is no output schema, the description could have provided more context to fill that gap.

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% for both 'market' and 'top', each with clear defaults. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema already explains parameters, the description's contribution is minimal, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 action: '取得今日各產業漲跌幅排名' (get today's industry price change ranking). It also adds context about judging money rotation and weak sectors, which distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like get_market_heatmap or get_market_overview by specifying the exact resource (sector ranking) and purpose (identifying rotation).

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 implies usage for identifying sector rotation and weak sectors, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_heatmap or get_abnormal_blocks. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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