index_weight_top10

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what format the output returns. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. However, the Args section could be integrated more smoothly, and there's room to add brief usage context without sacrificing brevity. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while maintaining clarity.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual elements like output format (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), error handling, or dependencies on other tools. For a tool in a financial data context with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics by listing 'index_code: 指数代码' in the Args section, which mirrors the schema's 'Index Code' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this provides basic clarification but doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., examples like 'SZ000002'), validation rules, or how the parameter affects results beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 the tool's purpose as '获取指数权重股前十' (Get top 10 index weight stocks), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_basic_info', 'index_details_data', or 'index_perf_*' tools, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus other index-related tools.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to indices (e.g., index_basic_info, index_details_data, index_perf_30), there's no indication of whether this tool is for real-time data, historical analysis, or comparison purposes. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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