get_limit_up_down

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully names the data source ('Eastmoney via Akshare'), but never states whether the statistics are realtime, end-of-day, or tied to the latest trading day, nor whether there are rate limits or permission requirements — a significant gap for a market-data tool with no date parameter.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the docstring-style Args/Returns blocks are short and scannable. The parenthetical Chinese term and data-source line are mildly redundant with the title but not wasteful enough to hamper selection.

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?

The Returns section compensates for the absent output schema by naming the three result columns, which is helpful. What remains missing is the temporal scope — whether the counts are for today, the last trading day, or a range — which is the most important unknown for an agent deciding whether to call this.

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% and the schema does not declare an enum for 'format', so the description adds real value by listing the three accepted values and the default. However, the single parameter is otherwise trivial and needs no deeper semantics, so this lands at the baseline rather than above it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Fetches daily limit up and limit down stock statistics') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows this is an aggregate count tool rather than a stock list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_limit_up_pool, get_limit_down_pool, or get_consecutive_limit_up, which an agent could easily choose instead.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling pool tools that return per-stock detail. The agent must infer that this tool is for aggregate counts versus constituent lists, which is a real risk given the crowded sibling set.

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