get_sector_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that rankings are fetched, omitting whether the data is real-time, how the ranking is computed, what the output format looks like, or any safety hints such as read-only nature. The ambiguity of '行业板块/概念板块' (whether both or either is returned) is also unaddressed.

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, and front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose with no filler. It earns full marks for efficiency.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain default behavior (e.g., top=10), sort order, or return value structure, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly. The completeness is inadequate given the tool's complexity and missing structured context.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (top and type), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it simply echoes the sector type concept.

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's function: retrieving gain/loss rankings for A-share industry and concept sectors. It uses a specific verb (获取) and a distinct resource type, differentiating it from sibling tools that focus on individual stocks, quotes, or klines.

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. It does not mention scenarios where sector-level performance is needed, nor does it compare with sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and context, which is insufficient.

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