stock_classify_sina

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the source URL (Sina Finance) and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose data freshness, pagination, or column details. No contradiction.

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 brief, with a short purpose line, source URL, and docstring. It is well-structured for a simple tool, though the initial line is a fragment rather than a full sentence.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of safety annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details (valid parameters) and the return type. It doesn't include an output schema, but none is provided; it's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 input schema has no description for symbol, but the docstring compensates by listing valid categorical values and the default. This is essential for correct invocation, so the description adds significant meaning.

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 states the tool returns stocks classified by a specified classification system (Shenwan industry, second-level, hot concepts, regional sectors). It clearly names the resource and options, distinguishing it from broader stock list tools, but the verb 'list/retrieve' is implicit and the phrase '按 symbol 分类后的股票' is slightly ambiguous.

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 enumerates the four valid symbol values, giving the agent a clear sense of when this tool is applicable (e.g., when needing Shenwan industry constituents). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like stock_sector_spot or stock_board_concept_spot.

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