stock_dzjy_mrmx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and source URL, but does not disclose behaviors like date range inclusivity, pagination, or what specific columns are returned. It is consistent with annotations, adding marginal value beyond them.

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 structured as a docstring with source, parameters, return type, and is free of unnecessary elaboration. It is compact and scannable, though it includes a URL that could be considered extra but is useful as a reference.

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 moderate-complexity data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks date format details, return column information, and differentiation from closely related sibling tools. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists symbol with explicit choices {'A股', 'B股', '基金', '债券'} and identifies start_date/end_date as 开始/结束日期. However, it omits the date format (though schema defaults imply YYYYMMDD) and does not specify whether dates are inclusive or if there are constraints on range.

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 this tool retrieves 大宗交易每日明细 (block trade daily details) from Eastmoney's data center, with a URL and return type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stock_dzjy_mrtj (每日统计) by the explicit '每日明细' label, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 the sibling stock_dzjy_* tools (e.g., mrtj, hygtj, sctj) or explain scenarios where daily details are appropriate over daily statistics. Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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