get_stock_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the 10-symbol cap and the real-time (vs historical) nature of the data. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, behavior on invalid/delisted codes, or partial-failure handling, which are the questions an agent would ask before batching.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the purpose and the cap, and the Args block adds only the format detail that isn't in the schema. No filler or repetition; the structure is standard and easy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully described. The only real gap is operational behavior (auth, invalid-symbol handling) for a tool with no annotations — minor for a straightforward read call.

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% and the single 'symbols' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying comma-separated codes, a concrete example ('600519,000001,000858'), and that both Chinese and English commas are accepted. That is meaningfully more than the 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?

States a specific verb (批量获取) and resource (A 股股票的实时行情) with a hard scope limit (最多 10 只). The plural/批量 framing implicitly separates it from the singular sibling get_stock_quote and from get_stock_history, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the batch wording and the 10-symbol cap suggest this is the tool for multiple symbols at once, and the sibling get_stock_quote covers the single-symbol case. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing statement.

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