Valuation

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 data-source fallback chain (Tencent → Sina → Eastmoney push2), that only fetchable metrics are returned, that historical percentile/peer-comparison gaps are flagged as '未核验' in warnings for the host to fill via search, and that it only describes percentile position without buy/sell recommendations. It omits auth/rate-limit or freshness/latency details, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and keeps to a few dense lines: return payload, output contract, constraint, then data sources. Parenthetical skill reference and the source chain are informative rather than filler, though the structure is slightly telegraphic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. The description still covers data-source fallback, gap/warning handling, and the no-recommendation constraint, which is sufficient for a one-parameter read tool. The missing element is parameter format guidance, which matters for Chinese ticker codes.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'code' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description — no ticker format (e.g. 600519.SH vs 600519) is specified. The miss is bounded because there is only one, self-evidently named parameter, but the description adds nothing about it.

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 verb+resource: returns current PE(TTM)/PB/market cap/price for a given code, framed as the valuation anchor input for the laogu-value skill. An agent can tell it produces valuation metrics rather than raw quotes. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like quote or market_snapshot, which overlap on price/valuation data.

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 implies a purpose (valuation anchor for the laogu-value skill) but never says when to choose this over siblings such as quote, market_snapshot, or risk_inputs. No exclusions or alternative-selection conditions are given.

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