stock_bid_ask_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. The description adds that the return is a pandas.DataFrame and includes a source URL, but provides no additional behavioral context such as data freshness, filtering, or error behavior. 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 minimal and front-loaded with the source and example URL, followed by clear param/return documentation. Every element serves a purpose, but it lacks a more organized structure that would improve scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description should detail what the DataFrame contains (e.g., bid/ask prices, columns), but it only says '行情报价'. It also omits usage context, such as whether this is for a single stock only or how to handle different exchanges, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description explains that 'symbol' is a stock code (股票代码) of type str, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't specify the code format (e.g., 6-digit, exchange prefix) or clarify why the default is '000001', so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it retrieves a market quote (行情报价) from East Money, with a URL example and stock symbol parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly mention bid/ask or differentiate from other stock quote tools like stock_zh_a_spot_em, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 the numerous sibling stock market tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or scenarios where it's preferred, leaving the agent without direction.

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