stock_ipo_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 covered. The description adds useful context about the data source (同花顺) and the market segment filter, but does not disclose data freshness, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This is consistent with 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 compact and well-structured with standard docstring sections (:param, :return). The first line duplicates the title and the URL is not essential for invocation, but overall the content is not wasteful and each remaining line serves a purpose.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential retrieval purpose and parameter choices. However, it does not detail the returned DataFrame structure or mention any assumptions about data coverage, leaving some ambiguity for an agent needing to interpret the results.

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 input schema only provides type string and a default, but the description lists the exact allowed choices for the 'symbol' parameter (e.g., '全部A股', '沪市主板'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable and gives the agent the necessary constraints to invoke the tool correctly.

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 (同花顺 新股申购与中签) and scope (data for IPO subscriptions and winning results) via the title, URL, and return line. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover other aspects of IPOs (e.g., benefits, HK IPOs), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does and lists parameters, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or when a sibling IPO-related tool might be more appropriate.

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