stock_info_global_cls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the URL and return type. It does not disclose what data is returned, whether the symbol filter changes the output structure, or any rate limits or source specifics.

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 concise, but it includes redundant lines such as ':return:' and ':rtype:' which say the same thing. It is a bare docstring with some repetition and lacks a polished, front-loaded summary. It earns a middling score for being short but not optimally structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description has the full burden of explaining what the DataFrame contains. It fails to do so—an agent cannot know whether this returns news items, stock codes, or price data. The meaning of the symbol parameter is also under-specified, making the tool incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does provide the allowed values '全部' and '重点' which are absent from the schema, but it does not explain what these values mean. The type declaration duplicates the schema, and the parameter name 'symbol' remains ambiguous.

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 is essentially a label '财联社-电报' (CLS Telegram) with a URL, lacking any action verb or explicit statement of what the tool does. The tool name suggests global stock info from CLS, but the description does not confirm this or differentiate it from sibling tools like stock_info_global_em or stock_info_global_sina.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives, use cases, or prerequisites. The URL is contextual but does not help an agent decide between the many stock_info_global_* siblings.

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