stock_margin_detail_bse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a repeated statement about margin transaction details, but no behavioral context such as date format expectations, error behavior, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotations, but adds little beyond them.

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 standard docstring structure (title, param, return). It contains no unnecessary words. However, the first line largely repeats the tool name and the overall brevity leaves out important details, which is acceptable for conciseness but contributes to the completeness gap.

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?

The tool has a simple schema and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the returned DataFrame contains. It only says '融资融券明细' (margin details), which is vague. It also omits the date format and any caveats about data availability. While annotations cover safety, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output and effective use.

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 has a single 'date' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description bears the full burden. It adds the meaning 'trading day' but does not specify the expected format (e.g., YYYYMMDD), provide examples, or explain how the date filters the returned data. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema-level description.

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 data source (Beijing Stock Exchange), the category (margin trading/securities lending), and the specific data (transaction details). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools (e.g., stock_margin_detail_sse, stock_margin_detail_szse) beyond the market name in the tool name itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools such as stock_margin_bse or the SSE/SZSE margin detail tools. The only hint is the market name in the title, but that is not explicit usage guidance.

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