查找股票代码

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the tool is time-consuming and excludes crypto. However, it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or any pagination/rate limits. While the basic read nature is implied, the lack of detail on return structure limits transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and an exclusion, the second provides usage guidance. There is no wasted text; every sentence serves a clear function. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, exclusions, and when to use alternatives. It lacks an explicit description of the output format (e.g., 'returns a list of matching stock codes'), but this can be reasonably inferred. For a simple search tool, the description is sufficient but could be slightly more explicit.

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% for both parameters (market and keyword). The description adds context about searching by stock name/company name and reiterates the crypto exclusion, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the description adds only marginal value, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 searches for stock codes using keywords like stock name or company name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is for searching codes, while other tools likely use codes directly. The exclusion of cryptocurrency is also mentioned, adding specificity.

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 explicitly provides when to use (when needing to find a stock code by name) and when not to use (if the code is already known, use other tools). It also notes the tool is time-consuming and does not support crypto, giving clear guidance on alternatives.

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