stock_zh_index_spot_sina

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the risk of IP banning under high request volumes, a recommended retry delay, and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). This significantly informs agent expectations.

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 and includes only relevant technical details: source path, URL, a caution about IP bans, and return type. It is well-structured as a docstring, though the Chinese title and URL add some redundancy.

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 no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: data source (Sina), scope (all A-share indices), return type (DataFrame), and a critical operational warning (IP banning). It is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to use it, though explicit column details are not provided.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description need not explain any input semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as returning real-time market data for all A-share indices from Sina Finance ("所有指数的实时行情数据"). The source and scope are explicit, but it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'fetch' and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as stock_zh_index_spot_em.

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 includes a practical warning about IP bans from heavy scraping and suggests retrying after 10 minutes, which implies usage frequency constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., stock_zh_index_spot_em), nor does it mention exclusion conditions.

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