option_finance_sse_underlying

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing safety context. The description adds the official source URL and the pandas.DataFrame return type, which are helpful, but it does not disclose other behavioral details like update frequency, potential delays, or data completeness. It adds some value without fully going beyond 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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, the source URL, then parameter and return type docstrings. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundant prose.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with one optional parameter, the description is largely complete: it gives the source, parameter choices, and return type. It does not describe the columns of the DataFrame or clarify that '当日行情' means current-day data only, but the simplicity of the use case and the provided URL mitigate this 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?

The input schema only defines symbol as a string with a default, giving zero description. The tool description compensates fully by explicitly listing all five valid values for symbol (华夏上证50ETF期权, 华泰柏瑞沪深300ETF期权, 南方中证500ETF期权, 华夏科创50ETF期权, 易方达科创50ETF期权) and specifying the type. This is essential information the schema lacks.

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 states the tool returns intraday quotes for SSE option underlyings ('期权标的当日行情'), with a specific source URL and a list of valid symbols. It clearly identifies the data resource and scope, but does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like option_sse_underlying_spot_price_sina, so it misses the top score.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions. The description only explains what the tool does and lists parameter choices, leaving the agent to infer usage context. This is below the 'clear context' threshold.

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