stock_hk_spot_em

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds only the return type (DataFrame) and source URL, with no additional behavioral details like pagination or data scope. This is adequate but not rich, earning a baseline score given the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 concise and relevant, containing only the source, URL, return value, and return type. It could be more structured with a clear sentence, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity and wastes no words.

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 simple no-parameter read-only nature and the presence of annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return type. However, it could be more explicit about the exact scope (e.g., 'all Hong Kong stocks') and any limitations, making it just short of a perfect score.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description offers no parameter information, but none is needed; the schema is empty and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as providing real-time Hong Kong stock quotes from Eastmoney, with a source URL. It distinguishes from siblings like stock_hk_spot and stock_hk_main_board_spot_em by naming the source and the general HK stock scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its applicability from the name and description alone.

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