get_stock_basic_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description only lists output fields without 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?

The description is very concise: one line for the purpose and one line for the parameter with example. Every sentence is necessary and adds value. No wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and expected input, and lists the returned fields. It could mention whether the output is a single object or list, but overall it is sufficient.

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 single parameter 'code' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds an example format ('e.g. 'sh.600519''), which provides meaningful context beyond the schema. This clarifies the expected input format clearly.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('basic info') and lists the specific fields returned (code, code_name, ipoDate, outDate, type, status). It is distinct from sibling tools that provide other types of stock data, but could be improved by explicitly differentiating from similar tools like get_stock_snapshot.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_stock_snapshot or get_stock_industry. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where the tool should not be used.

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