stock_hk_financial_indicator_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 that the tool returns a pandas.DataFrame and references a source URL, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or data scope beyond what annotations provide.

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 a compact docstring with a title, URL, parameter, and return type. It is front-loaded and each line serves a purpose, though the URL is arguably optional and could be omitted for brevity. Overall, it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return type as 'financial indicators' in a pandas.DataFrame, but it does not specify which indicators are included or their format. This is adequate for basic usage but leaves ambiguity about the data contents, especially given the description's brevity.

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 schema has one parameter, symbol, with no description. The description explicitly states 'symbol: 股票代码' (stock code) and provides a default example via the URL (code=03900). This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not detail the expected format or possible values.

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 indicates this tool retrieves financial indicators for Hong Kong stocks from East Money via the title '东方财富-港股-核心必读-最新指标' and the parameter/return documentation. It distinguishes itself by specifying '核心必读' (core reading) and '最新指标' (latest indicators), though other HK financial tools exist among siblings.

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 implies the tool is used when financial indicators for a specific HK stock are needed, based on the provided purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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