option_sse_greeks_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a pandas DataFrame and takes a contract code, but it doesn't disclose what 'basic information' includes, any side effects, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid input. The added value beyond annotations is minimal.

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 short (a docstring) and front-loaded, but it repeats '期权基本信息表' in both the description and return lines, which is redundant. It is concise in length but lacks substantive content that would justify its brevity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete: it doesn't explain the contents of the return table, the expected symbol code format, or any source-specific behavior. The mismatch between the 'greeks' name and 'basic information' description leaves a critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does state that symbol is a '合约代码' (contract code), providing basic meaning, but offers no format guidance, examples, or clarification of the default '10003045'. This is insufficient to fully understand the parameter.

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 says '期权基本信息表' (option basic information table), which is vague and doesn't mention 'greeks' despite the tool name indicating that. It lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and doesn't distinguish this from other option_sse_* sibling tools like option_sse_daily_sina or option_sse_spot_price_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description only presents the parameter and return type without any contextual use case.

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