stock_us_spot

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.