stock_sy_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the note that the date should reference the website. It does not mention pagination, data volume, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, with a clear structure: title, URL, parameter doc, and return doc. It is front-loaded with the key information and does not contain unnecessary verbosity. The URL and param/return sections are all relevant.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return. It states that it returns a pandas.DataFrame of individual stock goodwill details, but does not describe the columns or any specifics about the data. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools in usage context. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the single parameter 'date' is the data date as specified by the website, and specifies its type as str. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more specific about the date format or valid values. Given the single parameter, it adequately compensates.

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 resource (East Money individual stock goodwill details) and provides a source URL, distinguishing it from similar stock_sy_* tools by specifying '个股商誉明细'. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'list', making the purpose slightly implicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as stock_sy_hy_em or stock_sy_jz_em. It only mentions that the date parameter should follow the website's specification, which is a parameter-level hint, not tool selection guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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