option_minute_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the data source is Eastmoney and the return type is pandas.DataFrame, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or handling of invalid symbols. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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, including a title, source URL, parameter documentation, and return type. Every line provides useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, parameter semantics, and return type effectively. However, it does not detail the DataFrame columns or data granularity beyond 'minute frequency', which would be helpful but not critical given the tool's straightforward nature and strong annotations.

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 schema only provides the parameter name and a default value, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that 'symbol' is the option code and instructs the caller to obtain it via option_current_em(), which is meaningful guidance beyond the schema. The default value 'MO2404-P-4450' also serves as a format example.

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 the tool provides option market minute data ('期权市场-分时行情') and returns '指定期权的分钟频率数据' (minute frequency data for the specified option). It specifies the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling option minute tools like option_sse_minute_sina or option_finance_minute_sina.

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 gives explicit guidance on how to obtain the symbol parameter ('通过调用 ak.option_current_em() 获取'), which is useful for correct invocation. It implies this tool is for minute-level option data from Eastmoney but does not mention when to use alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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