get_all_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returns a markdown table, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination behavior (limit parameter is undocumented). For a read operation 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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, args, returns. It's front-loaded with the main function. However, the Args and Returns sections could be more integrated, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'for a date' repeated).

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the date parameter and return format but misses limit and format parameters, behavioral context, and fails to fully guide usage among many siblings. For a data-fetching tool in a crowded namespace, this is inadequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the 'date' parameter with format and default, but omits 'limit' and 'format' parameters entirely. This leaves two of three parameters undocumented, failing to add sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 fetches a list of all stocks and their trading status for a date, specifying resource (stocks and indices) and verb (fetch). It distinguishes from siblings like get_suspensions (specific status) or get_stock_basic_info (different data), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from get_hs300_stocks or get_sz50_stocks which fetch subsets.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_suspensions for suspended stocks only, get_hs300_stocks for specific indices, or get_stock_basic_info for detailed info. The description implies usage for comprehensive stock lists with trading status but lacks context on alternatives or exclusions.

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