stock_xgsglb_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination or rate limits. This adds some value beyond annotations but is not 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 reasonably concise, with a clear docstring structure. It includes a useful data source URL and parameter/return documentation. It could be slightly tighter, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, parameter values, return type, and source. It does not list the DataFrame columns, but given the low complexity and lack of output schema, this is an acceptable gap.

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 schema only defines 'symbol' as a string with a default, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by enumerating all valid values ('全部股票', '沪市主板', '科创板', '深市主板', '创业板', '北交所') and their meaning, providing complete parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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's function: '新股申购与中签查询' (new stock subscription and winning results query), with a specific verb '查询' and resource. The URL and parameter choices further clarify the scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on subscription and lottery results rather than other IPO stages like review or declaration.

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. It only defines what the tool does and lists the symbol parameter choices. No mention of exclusions or related tools (e.g., stock_ipo_review, stock_xgsr_ths), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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