index_us_stock_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds context by specifying the source URL and the pandas DataFrame return type, but it does not disclose behavior such as data freshness, rate limits, or error handling. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the extra context is modest.

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 and well-structured: a title, a source URL, and a clear param/return docstring. Every line serves a purpose with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 quote tool, the description provides the essential parameter and return type, but the return value is described only as '美股指数行情' (US stock index quotes) without details on the DataFrame structure, columns, or whether it is real-time, delayed, or historical. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the data content and format.

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 for 'symbol' has no description and no enum, so the description compensates by documenting the allowed values: '.IXIC', '.DJI', '.INX', '.NDX', and the type (str). This is valuable and goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the meaning of each symbol (e.g., which index they represent), which would be additional context.

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 '新浪财经-美股指数行情' (Sina Finance US stock index quotes) and includes a URL for Sina's US stock index pages, indicating the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying US stock indices from Sina rather than global or other exchange indices, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related data (e.g., historical data or other index providers). The only intended use is implied by the name and the symbol parameter.

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