stock_info_global_futu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds a return type (pandas.DataFrame) and source URL, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as data scope, real-time nature, or potential quirks. It is adequate but not rich, fitting the baseline for a safe read-only operation with good 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 highly concise, containing only the title, URL, and return type in a clear docstring format. Every element earns its place, and there is no superfluous information. It is brief but effectively structured for a parameterless tool.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It explains the return type but not the nature of the news content (e.g., market updates, company announcements) or any temporal scope. It is sufficient for a simple news feed, but richer context would help differentiate it from siblings and clarify expectations.

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, so the schema is fully covered (100%) and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no parameters, as the description cannot add parameter detail where none exist.

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 identifies a specific resource (富途牛牛/ Futu news) and provides a URL and return type, but it lacks a clear verb like 'fetch' or 'list.' The resource is evident, but the action is implied rather than stated. It does distinguish from siblings by the source (Futu), but the wording is a noun phrase rather than a directive.

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. With many sibling news tools (e.g., stock_info_global_em, stock_info_global_sina), the description gives no context on why one would choose Futu news over others, nor any exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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