批量获取行情

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the '实时行情' (real-time quotes) aspect and batch capability, which are useful but not deeply detailed (no error handling, partial results, or rate limits). This adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context, matching the calibration baseline.

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 two short clauses with zero filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the use case is appended efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only batch quote tool with one parameter fully documented in the schema and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, use case, and the batch nature. It does not mention edge cases like invalid symbols, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 100%: the 'symbols' parameter already has a clear description with format and examples. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond restating '多只' (multiple). With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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' (get) and the resource '多只股票的实时行情' (real-time quotes for multiple stocks), distinguishing it from single-stock tools like get_stock_quote. It also adds a use case ('适合对比和监控' - suitable for comparison and monitoring), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool ('一次可查询多只' - can query multiple at once, '适合对比和监控' - for comparison/monitoring) but does not explicitly contrast with get_stock_quote or state exclusions. It gives clear context without naming alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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