stock_zt_pool_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and source URL, which provides some behavioral context, but does not disclose any caveats like handling of non-trading days or data limits.

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 and well-structured, using a standard docstring format with source URL, param, and return sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the source, parameter, and return type, but lacks output column details, behavior when the market is closed, or any distinction from closely related limit-up pool tools. Given no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 has one parameter with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It states 'date' is a trading day and shows a default value '20241008' indicating the YYYYMMDD format. However, it does not explain whether the parameter is required, how to handle invalid dates, or what happens if omitted.

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 retrieves the '涨停股池' (limit-up stock pool) from East Money's market center, with a source URL and parameter/return info. It is specific about the resource and verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling limit-up pool tools like stock_zt_pool_dtgc_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about suitable scenarios. It only mentions the parameter and return type, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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