股票筛选

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool sorts/filters by several metrics, but it slightly overstates filtering capability: the schema only exposes order_by and market, not filter thresholds for PE/PB etc. This minor ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and key dimensions immediately, which is ideal for an agent scanning tool definitions.

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?

With a 5-parameter tool, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the overall definition is mostly adequate. However, the description omits any when-to-use guidance and leaves the sort-vs-filter ambiguity unresolved, so it is not fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's metric list roughly mirrors the order_by enum but does not add detail about page, size, order direction, or market values beyond what the schema already documents.

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 identifies a stock screener ('股票筛选器') and names concrete metrics such as 涨跌幅, 市值, PE, PB, and 换手率 that it can sort/filter by. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from quote/detail tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling stock-list tools like get_hot_stocks.

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 instead of alternatives such as get_hot_stocks or get_stock_quote. No prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the schema and name alone.

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