stock_board_change_em

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

The description adds that the tool returns a pandas DataFrame and is sourced from a specific East Money URL, and scopes the data to the current day (当日). This goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but it does not disclose potential caveats such as data columns, freshness, or error behavior.

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, with only the title, URL, return type, and rtype. It is concise and front-loaded, but the title repetition and lack of structured explanation prevent a perfect score.

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 must explain what the DataFrame contains. It only says '板块异动详情页' (sector change detail page) and the return type, without describing columns, meaning of '异动', or any limitations. This is insufficient for a no-parameter tool.

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, so the schema provides everything needed. The description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 restates the title '东方财富-行情中心-当日板块异动详情' and adds a URL and return type, but lacks a verb and does not explain what '板块异动详情' entails or distinguish it from sibling tools like stock_board_concept_spot_em. It is more than a pure tautology because of the URL and rtype, but the core purpose is only implicit.

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 given on when to use this tool versus other stock board tools. It neither states appropriate use cases nor mentions alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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