stock_new_a_spot_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds little beyond the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and that results are 'real-time' – no mention of refresh cadence, coverage, or column shape.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the source and dataset, then the return type. Nothing is wasted, though the single colon-tagged metadata line is terse to the point of offering little actionable structure.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the source, subject, and return type, which is close to adequate. It stops short of describing what the real-time snapshot contains (columns, number of rows, whether it is a full list), leaving a modest gap for a data-retrieval tool.

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 takes zero parameters (100% schema coverage of an empty object), so there are no parameter semantics to add; baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty 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?

States a specific source (东方财富网/Eastmoney) and resource (新股 new stocks, 实时行情 real-time quotes), so the agent knows it returns live quotes for newly listed shares. It does not differentiate from close siblings like stock_zh_a_new_em or stock_zt_pool_sub_new_em, which also cover new/IPO stocks.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many new-stock siblings, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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