stock_rank_xstp_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 clear. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects. 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 front-loaded with the Chinese title, followed by the URL and docstring-style param/return lines. It contains some redundancy (the return line repeats '向上突破') and the format is a bit unstructured, but overall it is efficient and every part contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the source, parameter choices, and return type. However, it does not describe the structure or columns of the returned DataFrame, which is relevant since no output schema is provided. It is minimally sufficient but lacks details that would help an agent know what to do with the result.

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% and the parameter has no enum, so the description's explicit list of eight moving-average options (from '5日均线' to '500日均线') is essential. It also specifies the type as str. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail and is critical for correct invocation.

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 THS Data Center technical stock selection for upward breakout (向上突破), with a source URL. This distinguishes it from sibling rank tools like stock_rank_cxd_ths or stock_rank_ljqd_ths. However, it doesn't explicitly state the action (e.g., 'retrieves a list of stocks'), relying on the title concept to convey the operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs other stock_rank_*_ths tools. The description only provides parameter options and a source URL, with no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific use cases. The intended context is implied by the title but not stated.

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