stock_info_change_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it specifies the return type as list and includes a source URL, but it does not reveal any operational details such as rate limits, response structure beyond 'list', or potential empty results. Without annotations this would be insufficient, but with them it adds little extra.

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, using a docstring format with title, source URL, param, and return sections. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The URL is somewhat verbose but serves as a source reference. Overall it is efficient and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 tool, the description covers the basic input and return type. However, there is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the list contains (e.g., whether it's just name strings or includes dates). The optional nature of the symbol (required 0, default) is not mentioned in the description, and edge-case behavior is absent. It is minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'symbol' with a string type and default, but no description. The description compensates with ':param symbol: 股票代码' (stock code), giving the parameter clear meaning. It does not specify format (e.g., exchange prefix or digit length), but the default '000503' and Chinese context make it reasonably clear.

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 the tool returns Sina Finance stock former names (新浪财经-股票曾用名) for a given symbol. It identifies the specific resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling stock_info_sz_change_name which may cover a similar 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are siblings like stock_info_sz_change_name and many other stock_info tools, but the description does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or specific use cases. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name.

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