stock_rank_xxtp_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 covered. The description adds that the tool returns a pandas DataFrame of downward-breakout stocks and enumerates the supported moving-average periods. It does not disclose data recency, market scope, or pagination, but the read-only nature is clear from annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 uses a docstring format with a first line identical to the annotation title, which is redundant. The URL, parameter, and return type lines are useful, but there is no crisp imperative sentence describing the tool's function. It is compact but not optimally structured for an agent to quickly parse.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description should at least outline what the returned DataFrame contains (e.g., stock codes, names, breakout dates). It only states 'return: 向下突破' and 'rtype: pandas.DataFrame', leaving the output structure and data scope unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding if the tool meets its needs.

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 only defines symbol as a string with a default, providing no enum or explanation (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing all allowed values ('5日均线' through '500日均线') and indicating they represent moving average periods. This is actually more informative than a typical enum, as the values are self-descriptive. It lacks a definition of what 'symbol' means in context, but the choices are sufficiently clear.

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's first line '同花顺-数据中心-技术选股-向下突破' clearly identifies the resource and action: a THS data center technical stock selection tool for downward breakouts. The URL and parameter list reinforce this, and the term '向下突破' distinguishes it from sibling rank tools focused on other metrics (e.g., 向上突破). It stops short of a full sentence stating 'returns stocks that broke below the given moving average,' so it's clear but not maximally explicit.

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 like stock_rank_xstp_ths (likely upward breakout) or other stock_rank_* tools. It only lists the source and parameters, leaving the selection criteria to the agent's interpretation. No exclusions or recommended contexts are given.

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