get_stock_yearly_trading

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies the operation is a read-only query ('查詢'/'取得'), describes the MCPToolResponse envelope and all nested data fields, and lists likely failure causes such as invalid symbol, missing aggregated data, and temporary source unavailability. Minor omissions like rate limits or authentication are not material for this simple query tool.

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 purpose, examples, Args, Returns, and Raises sections. The detailed return-field breakdown is justified because there is no output schema, so it adds essential value rather than 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: invocation syntax, expected return structure, and error scenarios. Minor details like ordering of yearly data or unit conventions are not critical for successful use.

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 only declares symbol as a required string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by defining symbol as '股票代碼' and providing real examples ('2330' for TSMC, '2454' for MediaTek), so the meaning and format of the parameter are unambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '取得股票年交易資訊' (get stock yearly trading information). It further enumerates the exact fields returned (yearly volume, amount, average price, yearly change), making it clear that this tool is distinct from sibling tools like get_stock_daily_trading or get_stock_monthly_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 clearly states the intended use case: '適合長期投資分析與歷史回顧' (suitable for long-term investment analysis and historical review), and provides concrete calling examples. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name sibling alternatives, but the annual scope makes the intended context clear.

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