stock_hot_deal_xq

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source URL, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or the meaning of the ranking data. It adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 uses a clear docstring-like structure with :param and :return. It repeats the title from annotations, which is slightly redundant, but the overall size is appropriate and all sentences are informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the returned DataFrame's columns or content. It only states the return type and the ranking name, leaving the data structure unclear. The tool is simple (one param), but the lack of output detail and usage context makes it only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists the allowed values for 'symbol' ('本周新增' and '最热门') and specifies its type as str. This is a meaningful addition beyond the bare schema, though it does not explain the meaning of each value.

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 identifies a specific resource (Xueqiu Shanghai/Shenzhen hot deal ranking) and the parameter choices. The verb is implied ('returns a ranking'), but the title and return type clarify the action. It does not distinguish from sibling stock ranking tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists parameter choices and a URL, with no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion of other tools. This is a clear gap.

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