option_current_em

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not elaborate on data freshness, coverage, or any special behavior. This is sufficient given the strong annotation coverage, matching a baseline of 3.

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 very short—one title line, one URL, and one return line. It is concise without redundant prose. The title line repeats the annotations but adds the URL and return type, making it compact and 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 no-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description gives a minimal but usable summary: source (East Money), return type (DataFrame), and content (option prices). However, it lacks details on what exactly constitutes 'current' (e.g., real-time snapshot, all contracts) and may not fully prepare the agent to interpret the result or choose among the many option tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no properties. With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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 is essentially a noun phrase ('东方财富网-行情中心-期权市场') identical to the title, providing no explicit verb or action. The return line '期权价格' hints at output but does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., 'get current option prices from East Money'). It does not distinguish itself from numerous sibling option tools like option_sse_daily_sina or option_current_day_sse.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of whether it suits current market overview, real-time quotes, or specific underlyings. Sibling tools cover many option scenarios, but no comparative context is provided.

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