stock_a_congestion_lg

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds no behavioral traits beyond that. It mentions the URL and return type but does not disclose details like rate limits, authentication, or data update frequency. While it does not contradict annotations, it adds minimal behavioral context, so the score is low.

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 and avoids unnecessary verbosity, but it is structured as a fragment: a title, a URL, and docstring lines. It is not a coherent sentence, and the layout could be cleaner. It earns its place, but the structure is suboptimal.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of explaining what the tool returns. It states the return type (pandas DataFrame) and the general subject (market congestion), but it does not describe the columns, date range, or any other details about the data. This is adequate for a simple zero-parameter retrieval but lacks completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (vacuously). There is nothing to explain about parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 merely restates the tool's name ('乐咕乐股-大盘拥挤度' / 'LeGuLeGu - Market Congestion') and includes a URL and return type. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it not much more than a labeled resource. It does identify the resource (market congestion data) but does not clearly state what action the tool performs, so it is close to a tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any similar tools or exclude any scenarios. There is no explicit context or comparison, so an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over siblings beyond the name itself.

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