get_consecutive_limit_up

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

Naming Eastmoney via Akshare adds provenance and indicates an external data dependency, while the Returns section discloses the supplied fields. With no annotations, however, it leaves non-trading or invalid dates, empty results, upstream failures, and top_n ordering or truncation behavior unspecified.

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 docstring is front-loaded, compact, and uses scannable Args and Returns sections. Its first two sentences overlap somewhat and could be combined, although the second does helpfully explain the domain term.

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 three-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, listing the source, formats, defaults, and returned fields covers most invocation needs. It remains incomplete on result ordering, no-data or error behavior, and selection relative to the other limit-up tools.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description documents all three parameters: YYYYMMDD date syntax and the default of today, top_n's meaning and default of 30, and all three format choices with the markdown default. This provides enough information to invoke the tool without inferring parameter behavior from names alone.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: fetching stocks that have been limit up for consecutive days, and supplies the Chinese term 连板股. It does not explicitly distinguish this streak-focused result from siblings such as get_limit_up_pool or get_limit_up_down.

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 consecutive-days criterion implies the intended screening use case, while date and top_n indicate bounded point-in-time retrieval. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, alternative sibling, or advice about selecting a valid trading date.

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