stock_zh_index_daily_em

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read from an external source. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is useful context beyond annotations, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or output column structure. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the source and resource, but includes boilerplate type declarations (:type, :rtype) that duplicate the schema and add little value. It is adequately sized, though not optimally structured for an agent.

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 three-parameter data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, parameters, and return type sufficiently but omits key details like date format (implied by defaults but not stated) and output columns. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so remaining gaps are moderate rather than critical.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well for symbol by explaining market prefixes (sz, sh, csi) and an example ID, but start_date and end_date are only labeled '开始时间' and '结束时间' without date format or range restrictions. The result is partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 source (东方财富网) and resource (股票指数数据), and the parameter example clarifies it retrieves index data for a given symbol. However, it does not explicitly say 'daily historical' data nor differentiate from sibling tools like stock_zh_index_daily or stock_zh_index_daily_tx. An agent can identify the general resource but lacks a specific verb and sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The description only documents parameters, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and provider.

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