get_stock_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose real behavioral detail: default source ordering and automatic fallback on failure. It omits any statement about read-only nature, market-hours behavior, latency, or failure modes, so coverage is partial rather than rich.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then source behavior, then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place, though the Args formatting is slightly boilerplate for only two parameters.

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 described. Between the purpose sentence and the two documented parameters, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly; only edge-case behavior (invalid codes, market closed) is unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: symbol is documented with concrete code examples (600519, 000001) and source is documented with its allowed values (auto/sina/tencent) and default, information absent from the schema's bare string properties. It stops short of specifying code format constraints (exchange prefixes, length).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("获取单只 A 股股票的实时行情") and the scope word "单只" (single) implicitly separates it from the plural sibling get_stock_quotes. An agent can distinguish this from get_stock_quotes/get_stock_history without opening either schema.

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 explains source-selection behavior (auto default, sina-first with tencent fallback, or force via source), which is useful operational guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_stock_quotes or get_stock_history, so usage is only implied.

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