option_cffex_sz50_spot_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the source URL and return type, which is helpful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or output granularity (e.g., includes both call and put quotes).

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes the source URL, parameter explanation, and return type in four lines. The :param/:type/:return notation adds structure, though the URL line could be seen as extra; overall it's 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the data source, how to find valid symbols, and the return type. It doesn't mention if the result includes both call and put rows or any data limitations, but it's adequate for a real-time quote fetcher.

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. It explains that 'symbol' is the contract code and references a specific list function to discover valid values. This is good guidance, though it doesn't provide a concrete example beyond the schema default 'ho2303'.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: fetching real-time quotes for a specified contract of the CFFEX SSE 50 Index options from Sina Finance. It distinguishes from siblings like option_cffex_sz50_daily_sina (daily) and option_cffex_sz50_list_sina (contract list) by explicitly saying '实时行情'.

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 guidance on how to obtain the required symbol parameter by directing users to ak.option_cffex_sz300_list_sina(). It implies when to use this tool (for real-time spot quotes) without explicitly naming alternatives, but this is sufficient for a straightforward data retrieval function.

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