板块最近行情：获取概念或行业板块最新实时价格、涨跌幅、交易量数据

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. It states the tool retrieves '最新实时' (latest real-time) data, implying it's a read-only operation with current information, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness guarantees, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly mirrors the title, which is acceptable given the tool's straightforward function. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, making it appropriately concise.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description is complete enough for basic use. It clearly states what data is retrieved. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the lack of annotations and usage guidelines leaves some contextual gaps, preventing a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('date' and 'query') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format for 'query' or examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'sectorPriceChangeRank' for rankings or 'sectorCapAnalysis' for capitalization) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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