A股恐贪指数：A股市场短期恐贪情绪指数

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it adds nothing beyond the tool's name. It doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what data format it returns, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral information is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about how the tool behaves.

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?

While the description is extremely concise (a single repeated phrase), this brevity stems from under-specification rather than effective communication. It fails to front-load critical information about the tool's purpose or usage, and the single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing any actionable insights. The structure is minimal but not helpful.

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 that there's an output schema (which helps), no annotations, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., index values, timestamps, or metadata) or how to interpret results, leaving gaps despite the output schema's existence. For a tool with no behavioral context, more descriptive content is needed to guide effective 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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'date' clearly documented as '指定日期，默认当天' (specified date, defaulting to today). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value regarding parameters.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'aShareMarketEvents' or 'aShareTemperature' that might serve related purposes. Without any usage instructions, the agent is left with no information to make informed decisions about tool selection.

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