stock_share_change_cninfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the API endpoint (p_stock2215) and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but no additional behavioral context such as date format handling, pagination, or potential errors. With annotations present, this moderate addition earns a 3.

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 compact docstring with a title, a reference URL, and parameter/return documentation. Each line contributes useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description at least specifies the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and content (company share capital changes). However, it omits practical details like date format (implied by defaults but not stated), whether the date range is inclusive, and any behavior when no data is found. For a straightforward query tool this is adequate but has clear minor gaps.

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%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It provides Chinese definitions for each parameter: symbol=股票代码, start_date=开始变动日期, end_date=结束变动日期, and also describes the return as 公司股本变动 (pandas.DataFrame). This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions, though date format is not explicitly stated.

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 opens with the Chinese title '巨潮资讯-股本股东-公司股本变动' (CNINFO - Shareholders - Company Share Capital Changes) and states it queries the p_stock2215 API. This clearly identifies the tool's function of retrieving company share capital change data. It is specific enough to distinguish it from many siblings, though it does not explicitly compare against similar cninfo stock tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only documents parameters and return type. Given the large sibling list, the lack of contextual selection guidance is a clear gap.

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