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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the symbol parameter currently returns all A-share quotes and that the original function does not exist in akshare. However, it does not disclose rate limits, data source, update frequency, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very short (one sentence) and lacks structure. It is front-loaded but could benefit from clearer formatting or bullet points. The title is absent, which hurts 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It does not mention what data the user receives. The mention of akshare adds confusion. The tool feels incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 the single parameter. The description adds useful context that the parameter is intended for a stock code but currently returns all A-share quotes, clarifying behavior beyond the schema.

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 states the tool gets real-time market data for A-shares, which is specific. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like stock_sh_a_spot_em and stock_sz_a_spot_em, which likely provide similar data. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include several A-share spot tools, but the description gives no comparison or context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function (getting real-time data) without revealing traits such as idempotency, authentication needs, data freshness, or any side effects. The agent has no additional behavioral context beyond the plain meaning.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. While it is efficient, it could be more informative without losing 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output format or how results are structured, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'region', including a description and enum values. The tool description adds no further meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves global stock market real-time data, using a specific verb and resource. However, among many sibling tools focused on specific regions or types, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, as the global scope is only implied by the name and parameter.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like regional real-time tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or any constraints. The minimal description fails to convey expected behavioral traits.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is vague and does not front-load critical information. While no word is wasted, the sentence does not earn its place due to lack of clarity.

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 output schema and the ambiguous description, the tool lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand what data is returned. It does not mention response structure, data scope, or any other completeness cues.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'date' parameter and its format. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the 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 '获取股市日历-公司动态数据' vaguely states it retrieves stock market calendar company dynamic data, but '公司动态数据' is ambiguous and does not clearly specify what data is returned. Compared to sibling tools like 'realtime_quote' or 'stock_zh_a_hist', the purpose is less clear and lacks distinction.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, data freshness, pagination behavior, or any limitations. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to add such context.

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, which is concise. However, it lacks structured information and does not front-load key details. It is adequate but not optimal.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain what data fields are returned, error handling, or the meaning of '实时' (real-time) in terms of latency. This leaves the agent under-informed.

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% (one parameter with description), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the tool's purpose. No additional detail on the limit parameter or its semantics.

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 '获取港股实时行情数据' clearly identifies the tool as retrieving real-time market data for Hong Kong stocks. It uses a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other markets (e.g., stock_sh_a_spot_em for Shanghai A-shares).

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which a different tool (e.g., realtime_quote) would be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It only mentions a potential network restriction but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Single sentence front-loads purpose and adds a caveat, no wasted words. Appropriate length for a simple tool.

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?

Minimally adequate: covers purpose and a limitation, but lacks details on returned data shape or typical use cases. No output schema increases need for more context, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at baseline.

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 already covers the symbol parameter with a clear example. Description adds no extra semantic beyond stating the data source, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it queries basic info of individual stocks from Xueqiu data source, distinguishing it from siblings like stock_individual_spot_xq (spot price) or stock_individual_info_em (East Money). The verb '查询' and resource '个股基本信息（雪球数据源）' are specific and unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The network limitation caveat hints at a constraint but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'more stable' without detailing rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. As a read-only query, it should state that it does not modify data, but it fails to do so.

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 that conveys the core purpose. It is efficiently front-loaded with no unnecessary words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what data is returned (e.g., company name, sector, etc.). It only says 'basic information,' which is vague, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output.

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%, and the schema description already provides examples for the symbol parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the purpose, so it meets the baseline but does not excel.

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 it queries individual stock basic information from a specific data source (东方财富) and emphasizes stability. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on basic info rather than real-time quotes or historical data, but could be more specific about what 'basic information' includes.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools for different stock data, an explicit recommendation or exclusion would help, but the description provides none.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function without mentioning read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. For a data retrieval tool, safety and idempotency are not addressed.

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?

Single concise sentence that is front-loaded with action and resource. No redundant information; every word serves a purpose.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe return data fields, real-time vs delayed, or error handling. For a tool with one parameter, basic completeness would include what the returned data looks like.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by including example stock codes (SZ600246, SH600000), clarifying the expected format beyond the schema's generic '股票代码' description.

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?

Description states specific verb '获取' (get), resource '个股实时行情数据' (individual stock real-time market data), and source '雪球' (Xueqiu). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_zh_a_spot_em which target different sources.

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?

Description implies usage for Xueqiu-sourced real-time data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., realtime_quote, stock_hk_spot_em). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the tool's function without disclosing behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or any side effects. The description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 short sentence that conveys the main purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and concise, but lacks structure such as sections or additional details.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential information about what it does. However, it does not explain the return format or any usage limitations, leaving room for improvement.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter `limit` with a description ('返回数据条数限制，默认为100条'). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets real-time market data for Shanghai A-shares, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `stock_sz_a_spot_em` which targets Shenzhen A-shares.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or consequences. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet.

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, direct Chinese sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. While it could include more detail, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not mention what data is returned (fields, format) or any limitations. It is adequate but incomplete.

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% for the single parameter (limit), with its description in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves real-time market data for Shenzhen A-shares (深A股), with a specific verb (获取) and resource (深A股实时行情). Among sibling tools like stock_sh_a_spot_em for Shanghai A-shares, this uniquely identifies its target market.

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 when to prefer stock_sh_a_spot_em or stock_hk_spot_em. The description does not include any context about exclusive use cases or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, data latency, or whether the results are cached. The brevity leaves key behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with key information. It is efficient but lacks internal structure (e.g., no bullet points). It earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the simple input and no output schema, the description could hint at what the output contains (e.g., price, volume). While '实时行情数据' implies real-time market data, it lacks specifics on return fields or pagination. The description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with one parameter fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the parameter concept in a different language (Chinese). The baseline of 3 applies as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: '获取美股实时行情数据（新浪）' means 'Get US stock real-time market data (Sina)'. It specifies the verb (获取), resource (美股实时行情数据), and data source (新浪), making it distinct from sibling tools that cover different markets or sources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with similar tools like stock_individual_spot_xq or realtime_quote, leaving the agent uninformed about selection criteria.

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

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

描述仅一句话，未透露任何行为细节，如是否只读、是否需要认证、速率限制等。没有注释，描述未承担披露行为的责任。

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?

描述仅一句话，无冗余信息，直接说明核心功能。结构紧凑，每个词都有意义。

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?

工具参数较多（5个），有枚举和日期范围，且无输出模式。描述未说明返回数据格式、使用注意事项或参数组合效果，信息不完整。

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?

输入模式描述覆盖100%，每个参数已有详细描述。描述本身未增加额外参数语义，根据规则基线为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?

描述明确说明工具用于获取A股历史行情数据，动词“获取”表示检索，资源明确为历史行情数据。与兄弟工具（如实时行情、分钟数据）区分明显。

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?

描述未提供何时使用此工具或何时应使用替代工具的指导。兄弟工具有多个相关工具，但描述中没有对比或使用场景说明。

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function. Missing details such as whether data is real-time or historical, return format, or required permissions. This leaves significant gaps 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 concise (one sentence) but lack of additional context makes it only minimally adequate. It is front-loaded but could benefit from slight expansion to cover key behavioral aspects.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values or data scope (e.g., date range). The agent lacks information to set expectations.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter has a description and enums. The tool description does not add further semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose as '获取股票分时数据' (get stock intraday data). It is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like stock_zh_a_hist, which is a minor shortcoming.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_zh_a_hist or realtime_quote. The agent must infer usage from context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool retrieves data, but omits details like whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for a simple tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It adequately explains the tool's function, though it could specify the return format for clarity.

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%, providing clear parameter meaning (limit on returned records). The tool description adds no additional insight beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in 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 '获取新股上市数据' clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'new stock listing data', distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle real-time quotes, historical data, or individual stock info.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like realtime_quote or stock_zh_a_hist, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'get data', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, safe, or mention any side effects, rate limits, or output format.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could hint at the return format (e.g., list of stock symbols). It meets basic needs but lacks depth.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters (one optional 'limit'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's description, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves risk warning board stock data. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like stock_sh_a_spot_em or stock_sz_a_spot_em, though the risk warning board is a distinct category.

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. The description lacks context about its intended use case or exclusions.

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