stock_info_global_ths

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 little beyond confirming it returns a pandas DataFrame and providing a source URL. It does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, or the nature of 'live' (streaming vs. snapshot), but given the annotation coverage, a middle score is appropriate.

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—three lines covering title, source URL, return type, and return description. It is not overly verbose, but it repeats the title in the :return: field and does not add structural detail like column names, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 tool without an output schema, the description provides basic context: source, return type, and subject. However, it lacks detail on what the DataFrame contains (columns, refresh frequency, language), which is important for an agent to know what to expect. It is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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 the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. Description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline for no parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 states the tool provides global financial live news from 同花顺 (THS), specifically via the URL. The :return: field indicates it returns a pandas DataFrame of this content. It is distinguishable from siblings like stock_info_global_em and stock_info_global_sina by the THS source. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve', though the context implies it.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the numerous sibling stock_info_global_* variants. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or use cases. The usage is only implied by the content type (global financial live), which is insufficient for an AI agent selecting among similar tools.

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