stock_kc_a_spot_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it returns a pandas DataFrame. The description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, source pagination, or any quirks about the returned data. Since the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds some value (return type, source) but not deeply rich behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded with the source and purpose, followed by the URL and return type. It is efficient without unnecessary fluff, but could be slightly better structured by including a brief note on the returned data fields or update frequency. However, it's still appropriately sized.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already indicate it is a read-only, idempotent operation, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It lacks details about the exact columns of the returned DataFrame, but the URL and title give enough context. The complexity is low, so the description is reasonably complete.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides all necessary information. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. The description does imply the tool returns all real-time quotes for the board without filtering, which is useful for understanding the scope of the call.

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 specifies that this tool retrieves real-time quotes for the 科创板 (STAR Market) from Eastmoney, but it is somewhat unclear whether 'spot' means the full list of all KCB stocks or a snapshot quote. The URL and return type clarify the data source, but the description does not explicitly distinguish this from other stock_*_spot_em siblings.

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 indicates this is for real-time market data from the 科创板 board, which is clear from the title and URL. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like stock_cy_a_spot_em or stock_zh_a_spot_em, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context implies it is for 科创板 spot quotes, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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