get_realtime_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields and mentions 'A股' scope, but does not disclose data freshness, error handling, rate limits, or response structure. The exchange auto-detection note appears only in the schema, not the tool description.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('获取A股实时行情') followed by a parenthetical list of returned fields. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned data fields, giving a solid sense of what to expect. However, it does not specify response structure or nesting, and lacks caveats about real-time data reliability, which would make it 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%, and the parameter description already explains the code format with an example and exchange auto-detection. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 tool fetches real-time A-share quotes and lists key fields (current price, change %, volume, PE/PB, market cap). This distinguishes it from tools like get_kline or get_technical_indicators, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_batch_quotes or mention single-stock scope, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 like get_batch_quotes or get_kline. It merely describes the output without mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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