stock_margin_underlying_info_bse

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds that it accepts a trading date and returns a pandas DataFrame, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as response structure, pagination, or edge cases.

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 to the point, with a title-like sentence followed by a brief docstring. It is not overly verbose and is well-structured, though it is arguably under-specified in content.

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 interface with one optional parameter, but the description lacks detail on what 'underlying securities information' includes. Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return values, but it only says '标的证券信息' and the return type, leaving ambiguity about the data's structure and content.

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 schema has one parameter, date, with no description. The description/docstring states this is a trading day (交易日), adding some meaning. However, it does not specify the expected format (though the default suggests YYYYMMDD) or any validation rules. Given 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 tool as providing Beijing Stock Exchange margin trading underlying securities information. It specifies the market (BSE) and the data category, distinguishing it from similar tools like stock_margin_underlying_info_szse. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' relying on the noun phrase to imply the action.

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 simply states the data content without any mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The tool name and sibling context hint at the use case, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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