get_stock_monthly_trading

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the unified response envelope, success flag, data structure, and monthly record fields, making the read-only retrieval behavior clear. No hidden side effects or mutations are suggested.

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 well-organized with a brief purpose statement, usage examples, and a structured Returns list. It is slightly repetitive by repeating '月交易資訊' in adjacent sentences, but the main purpose is front-loaded and the content earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers invocation, parameter meaning, return structure, and expected fields. It does not mention sorting order or historical depth of monthly data, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining that symbol is a stock code and by giving two concrete examples ('2330', '0050'). This is sufficient for the single required parameter, though it does not specify formatting constraints or market scope.

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 that the tool retrieves monthly trading statistics for a stock, including monthly volume, value, average price, and high/low prices. It is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_stock_daily_trading or get_stock_yearly_trading.

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 includes a usage hint ('適合中長期趨勢分析') and concrete invocation examples, implying when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_stock_daily_trading, get_stock_yearly_trading, or get_stock_monthly_average, nor does it provide exclusions.

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