get_limit_up_pool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a concrete behavioral trait — that date is optional and defaults to the most recent trading day. It does not cover data freshness guarantees, rate limits, market scope (e.g. which exchange), or empty-result behavior, which leaves notable gaps for a data-fetch tool.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the resource and fields followed by the one parameter's contract; every clause earns its place. The only minor friction is the mixed Chinese/English with a Latin 'date' token embedded mid-sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the single parameter is fully specified. The remaining gap is the absence of any when-to-use or sibling-routing guidance; for a simple read tool this is close to 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 0% for the single 'date' parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: it states the parameter is optional, gives the exact YYYYMMDD format, and specifies the default (most recent trading day). This is meaningfully more than the bare string schema provides.

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 first clause names the resource (涨停池 / limit-up pool) and enumerates the returned fields (code, name, consecutive-board count, board-break count, sealing funds, industry), which pins down the tool's purpose precisely. It does not use an explicit verb, but the semantic domain is unambiguous and implicitly distinct from the sibling get_limit_down_pool.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_limit_down_pool, get_kline, or get_fund_flow, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and field list.

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