stock_zh_a_new

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame) but does not disclose details like data freshness, universe definition, or limitations. This adds some value beyond the annotations but leaves behavioral questions unanswered.

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 highly concise: a title, a URL, and return type annotations. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It follows a standard docstring structure. However, it is so short that it approaches under-specification, though it remains efficient.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema nature of the tool, the description covers the source and return type. However, it fails to explain what '次新股行情数据' actually contains, such as which stocks are included, column names, or whether the data is real-time or historical. In the context of many similar stock tools, more detail would help.

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 trivially complete. Since no parameters exist, the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden to compensate for, and the description correctly omits parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as providing new stock (次新股) market data from Sina Finance. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the 'new stock' segment of the Shanghai/Shenzhen market. The lack of an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get' is a minor gap, but '行情数据' clearly implies data retrieval.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as stock_zh_a_spot_em or stock_zh_a_new_em, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description gives no context for tool selection.

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