stock_info_global_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the fact that it is a 7x24 global financial news feed from a specific URL, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose details about the DataFrame contents or any other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations already cover.

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 three short lines: the title, the source URL, and return type information. Every line adds some information (title, source, output type), and there is no redundant filler. It is appropriately structured for a simple no-parameter 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 tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly sufficient, but it does not explain what the returned DataFrame contains (e.g., columns like time, headline, URL). Since there is no output schema, the description bears the burden of describing the return values, and it only states '全球财经快讯' without structural details, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description has no need to explain parameters. No additional parameter information is required.

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 says '新浪财经-全球财经快讯' and ':return: 全球财经快讯', which restates the tool's title and indicates it returns global financial news. It is not a tautology because it adds the source URL and a return type, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list' and does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools such as stock_info_global_em or stock_info_global_ths beyond the source name.

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 its siblings (e.g., stock_info_global_cls, stock_info_global_em, stock_info_global_futu, stock_info_global_ths). The description does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, so an agent has no context for selecting this specific source.

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