stock_us_spot_em

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing the 15-minute delay, which is critical for data freshness. It also specifies the return type as pandas.DataFrame, though this is partly structural.

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 extremely concise, containing only the source name, URL, return value, delay, and return type. Every line adds value, and there is no redundancy or padding.

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?

For a simple no-parameter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: source, data content, delay, and return type. However, it does not list columns or explain the structure of the DataFrame, which could be useful given the absence of an output schema. Still, the tool's simplicity keeps the gap small.

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, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 returns '美股-实时行情' (US stock real-time quotes) from Eastmoney, with a source URL. It identifies the specific resource and differentiates from historical or daily tools by emphasizing '实时' (real-time) and the 15-minute delay.

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. Sibling tools like stock_us_spot, stock_us_famous_spot_em, and stock_us_pink_spot_em exist, but no distinguishing conditions 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.