stock_hsgt_board_rank_em

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the source URL and return type, but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or that it fetches from an external website. It does clarify the ranking is specifically for '增持' (increase) which is a meaningful filter, but overall it adds minimal behavioral context 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 a structured docstring with a clear title, source URL, and parameter documentation. It is not overly long, though the title is redundant with the annotations and the ':return:' line simply restates the title. Overall, information density is good and the structure is easy to parse.

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 two-parameter ranking tool, the description provides the necessary parameter choices, source URL, and return type. It does not explain the columns of the returned DataFrame or how the 'indicator' values map to time windows, but these are fairly intuitive. Given no output schema exists, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result as a ranked DataFrame.

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 no enums and 0% description coverage, but the docstring fully enumerates valid choices for both parameters: symbol (industry/concept/region) and indicator (今日/3日/5日/10日/1月/1季/1年). This is essential for correct invocation and fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 fetching a ranking of boards (industry/concept/region) by northbound capital increase from East Money Data Center. The title names the exact resource and the param choices further specify the scope, distinguishing it from sibling HSGT tools that cover different datasets like fund flow or individual holdings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other HSGT or ranking tools. It simply lists the data source and parameter options, without mentioning alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage from the title alone.

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