stock_info_global_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source URL and return type, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. With annotations present, the burden is lower, and the added value is minimal but not contradictory.

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, consisting of four short lines: title, URL, return label, and rtype. Each line adds some information, though it is fragmented rather than a coherent sentence. It is not overly verbose and avoids unnecessary details.

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 no-parameter read-only news fetch, the description is adequate: it gives the source, content type, and return type. However, it lacks details about the returned DataFrame's columns, data range, or any limitations. Since there is no output schema, a bit more description of the return structure would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description does not need to explain parameters. It does mention the return type as pandas.DataFrame, which is useful for the agent, and with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 resource: Eastmoney's global financial news flash (全球财经快讯), with a source URL and return type. It distinguishes from siblings like stock_info_global_sina or stock_info_global_ths by naming Eastmoney as the source. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', relying on the noun phrase and return annotation to convey the action.

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 such as stock_info_global_cls, stock_info_global_futu, or stock_info_global_sina. The description simply states what the tool is without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or selecting among sibling news sources.

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