stock_sh_a_spot_em

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 specific data provenance (Eastmoney website URL) and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or potential delays, but for a simple read-only quote tool, the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 core purpose, followed by a source URL and return type. It earns its place with a clear source citation and type hint. It could be slightly more structured with explicit labels, but it's efficient and not verbose.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the description provides sufficient completeness: it identifies the market, source, and return type. It doesn't describe the exact DataFrame columns or size, but for a real-time spot quote tool with clear sibling context, this is adequate. The source URL adds trust and traceability.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion. It explains the return type, which is relevant context for invocation, though not strictly parameter semantics.

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 states the tool retrieves real-time quotes for Shanghai A-shares from Eastmoney, with a source URL. It specifies the market (沪 A 股) and the action (实时行情), which distinguishes it from similar tools like stock_sz_a_spot_em (Shenzhen) and stock_kc_a_spot_em (STAR). However, it lacks explicit detail on the exact data columns or scope, and the name is somewhat cryptic without the title.

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 specifying the data source and market (Shanghai A-shares), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like stock_zh_a_spot_em or stock_sz_a_spot_em. The URL and market designation give context, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, only implied scope.

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