Macro Helper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the heuristic nature of weekday validation (cross-checked via 龙虎榜 data existence), the default-date behavior, that it is read-only/factual with no recommendations, and explicitly that it will not fabricate event calendars. It stops short of stating permission requirements or output shape, but adds substantial behavioral context.

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?

Purpose and default are front-loaded, but the text is dense with parenthetical asides and repeats return items that the output schema already covers. Each clause is meaningful, yet it could be tightened without losing information.

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 1-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it covers the default argument, the heuristic limitation, and the explicit non-goal (no fabricated event calendar). Only permission/prerequisite information is absent, which is minor here.

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% for the single `date` parameter, but the description compensates by clarifying that the argument is a date and defaults to today. That partially fills the gap, though it adds no format/expected-value detail beyond the default.

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 states a concrete deliverable: whether a given date (default today) is an A-share trading day, plus Beijing time and US session notes. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like ipo_calendar or market_snapshot, which also touch calendar/time concerns.

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?

Usage is implied (call it to check trading-day status, default date is today) and the skill mapping (laogu-macro) is noted, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the 15 siblings. The reader must infer routing.

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