futures_spot_stock

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the data's upstream/downstream nature, plus the source URL. It does not disclose further behavioral details like pagination or data freshness, but this is acceptable for a simple read-only fetch.

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 docstring is compact and well-structured with a title, source URL, and parameter/return documentation. There is no redundant filler, though the URL line is informational rather than strictly necessary for tool invocation.

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?

With a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, source, and parameter enum. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned DataFrame (columns, row semantics), which could hinder correct use of the output.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It provides the exact allowed values for 'symbol' (能源, 化工, 塑料, etc.) and its type, which is essential and not available in the schema. It does not explain the meaning of each category, but the values are self-explanatory.

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 identifies the resource (现货与股票上下游对应数据) and source (东方财富网数据中心) clearly, and the sector choices imply a filtering capability. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling spot/futures tools.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The sector parameter hints at use for sector-specific spot-stock data, but this is implicit and not stated as guidance.

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