stock_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets real-time data but doesn't mention critical aspects like rate limits, data freshness, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval with 2 parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like rate limits or data format, and with no output schema, it fails to describe return values, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('code' and 'market'), including an enum for 'market'. The description doesn't add any extra semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('单只股票实时行情数据' meaning 'single stock real-time quote data'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'stock_get_batch', which handles multiple stocks, leaving room for confusion about when to use each.

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 like 'stock_get_batch' for multiple stocks or other sibling tools for positions and watches. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing valid stock codes and market identifiers, or any exclusions.

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