stock_hk_fhpx_detail_ths

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it reveals the data source is THS (同花顺) and the return type is a DataFrame. It does not disclose pagination, column contents, or any rate limits. Since annotations already cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 includes a useful example URL, param doc, and return type in a few lines. No filler, but the structure is a bit terse and mainly a docstring copy. It earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and clear annotations. The description gives enough to call it (symbol only) but lacks context on the returned DataFrame fields and how this tool compares to sibling dividend tools. Given its simplicity, a 3 is adequate.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions on parameters), so the description carries the burden. It states 'symbol: 港股代码' (HK stock code) and provides an example URL with HK0700, which helps clarify the format. However, it doesn't specify whether the symbol should include leading zeros or the exchange prefix. The example implies a 4-digit format but doesn't explicitly say so. Baseline for one undocumented param is 3.

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 source (同花顺/THS), market (港股/HK stocks), and subject (分红派息/dividend distribution). It clearly identifies a specific resource per symbol. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling tools like stock_hk_dividend_payout_em, stock_fhps_ths, or stock_history_dividend, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The description only shows a sample URL and parameter type. There is no mention of when THS dividend details should be preferred over East Money (EM) or other dividend tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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