stock_lhb_detail_em

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 only a URL and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose behavioral details such as date format expectations, data granularity, pagination, or potential limitations. No contradiction 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 follows a clear docstring structure with a source line, URL, and param/return sections. It is not verbose, but the parameter descriptions are mostly redundant with the schema.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description should describe the returned DataFrame's contents. It only says '龙虎榜详情' without listing columns, aggregation level, or how it differs from related LHB tools. The tool appears simple, but the lack of output details leaves agents guessing about the structure and applicability.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description's param docs restate 'start_date: 开始日期' and 'end_date: 结束日期', which adds little meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not mention the expected date format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) or any constraints, despite the schema defaults hinting at the format.

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 the resource as '东方财富网-数据中心-龙虎榜单-龙虎榜详情' with a URL, but it lacks a clear action verb and does not specify what the '详情' includes. It is difficult to distinguish from sibling LHB detail tools like stock_lhb_stock_detail_em or stock_lhb_stock_detail_date_em, making the purpose vague.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternative LHB tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the resource name and parameters without contextual direction.

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