股票财务指标

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does but fails to mention that it is a read operation, whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns data structure. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. High conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not indicate the nature of the operation (read), what kind of indicators (e.g., ratios, growth), or any limits. A user would need additional documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra information beyond the schema: it mentions supported markets, which the schema already does via the market parameter description. It does not clarify the type of indicators or format of the symbol.

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 title and description clearly state it retrieves key financial indicators from stock reports for A, HK, and US markets. The verb '获取' (get) with specific resource '财务报告关键指标' makes the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like stock_financials_us, the focus on 'indicators' from 'financial reports' is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_financials_us or stock_financial_compare. It does not mention prerequisites, restrictions, or contextual cues for choosing this tool over siblings.

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