stock_register_cyb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a pandas DataFrame with the review results and includes the source URL, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, data freshness, or rate limits. It adds some value but is not especially rich in behavioral context.

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 a single compact string that front-loads the data source, includes the direct URL, and specifies both the return value and type (:return: and :rtype:). Every element earns its place, with no redundant or filler text. It is as concise as possible while conveying the essential information.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it names the source, gives the URL, and states the return type and content. It does not list DataFrame columns or mention potential caveats like data delay, but these are not critical for a basic read-only retrieval tool. The provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke and understand 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description provides no parameter details because none are needed. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema information.

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 IPO review information for the ChiNext (创业板) registration system from Eastmoney's data center, with a specific source URL and return type. It distinguishes itself from sibling register tools like stock_register_kcb or stock_register_sz by specifying 创业板 (ChiNext) and 注册制审核结果 (registration review results). The verb is implicit but the function name 'stock_register_cyb' reinforces retrieval.

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 implies usage by stating the data source and what it returns, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The URL suggests a direct data retrieval use case, but there is no comparative guidance against sibling tools like stock_register_all_em or stock_register_kcb. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not or alternative suggestions.

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