stock_board_concept_spot_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 the safety profile. The description adds useful context: data source (East Money), market scope (沪深京), and pandas DataFrame return type. However, it creates ambiguity about whether 'symbol' accepts a code (BK0818, per the URL) or a name ('可燃冰', per the default), which is a behavioral gap not resolved by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the source and purpose, followed by a tight param/return docstring. Every line contributes (source, parameter, return type). It reads as a raw docstring rather than a crafted prose description, but there is zero redundancy.

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 1-parameter, read-only tool with annotations, the description covers source, market scope, param type, and return type. But with no output schema, it should at least hint at key return columns or data shape; it only says '概念板块-实时行情'. It also omits how to discover valid concept board codes, which is a notable completeness 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning by defining symbol as 概念板块代码 (concept board code), type str, and provides a URL example (BK0818). However, the default value is a Chinese name rather than a code, and no valid values or lookup method are given, leaving the parameter semantics partially ambiguous.

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 verb+resource: it retrieves real-time quotes (实时行情) for concept boards (概念板块) from East Money's market center covering Shanghai/Shenzhen/Beijing boards. The 'spot' vs 'hist'/'cons' suffix pattern among sibling tools implicitly distinguishes it, though it never explicitly names alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (e.g., stock_board_concept_hist_em for history, stock_board_concept_name_em for board lists). Usage is only implied through the param/return docstring; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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