stock_hot_rank_latest_em

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context, essentially stating that it returns a pandas DataFrame. It does not disclose additional specifics like whether the data is real-time, what the freshness might be, or any quirks of the source. Given the strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded. It begins with the title, includes a source URL, and then provides concise docstring-style explanations for the parameter and return type. Every element earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the basic operation is covered. However, it lacks practical selection guidance among the many hot-rank sibling tools, does not mention what columns the returned DataFrame contains, and could be more explicit about whether the ranking is for a single stock or a list. These gaps leave an agent with some uncertainty about the tool's full capabilities.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'symbol' with no description. The description compensates by explaining it is a '带市场表示的证券代码' (stock code with market prefix), which clarifies the expected format (e.g., SZ000665). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema, though it could give more detail on valid prefixes and examples.

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 that this tool retrieves the latest stock popularity ranking from East Money (东方财富-个股人气榜-最新排名). It names the resource and the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate among sibling tools like stock_hot_rank_em or stock_hot_rank_detail_em, leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that stock_hot_rank_em might be for full rankings or that stock_hot_rank_detail_em provides details. The description only states the basic functionality without guiding an agent toward or away from this tool.

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