stock_hot_up_em

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

Annotations already provide strong safety signals (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description does not contradict these. However, the description adds only the source URL and return type, without disclosing potential behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination limits, or whether the ranking is real-time. With annotation coverage, a score of 3 reflects the minimal added context beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short lines that include the Chinese title, the source URL, and the return type/value. Every line provides distinct, useful information without redundancy or filler. This is an example of appropriate minimalism that prioritizes scannability.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential facts: what data is returned, its source, and its type. However, it lacks details about the returned DataFrame's columns, the ranking criteria, or any caveats (e.g., real-time vs. delayed). Given the simplicity, this is a minimum-viable description but leaves room for improvement.

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 zero parameters and the description is 100% covered by the schema (trivially). The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description includes a docstring-style return type, though no parameter info is needed. The description could not add value here since there are no parameters to describe.

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 explicitly states '东方财富-个股人气榜-飙升榜' and provides the source URL, clearly identifying it as the Eastmoney individual stock popularity surging list. This distinguishes it from sibling hot-rank tools, which typically target different ranking metrics or markets. The return type and value are also specified, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like stock_hot_rank_em or stock_hot_rank_detail_em. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and source URL, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between similar ranking tools.

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