get_realtime_multi_quote

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: results are sorted by change percentage descending, and "individual stock failures do not affect the overall result," which is a non-obvious partial-failure semantic. Gaps remain around rate limits, behavior when the 10-code limit is exceeded, and what an all-failed response looks like.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence with the hard limit immediately visible, followed by returns and args. The Returns block is warranted because there is no output schema. Slight redundancy between the prose and the Args/Returns sections, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the input constraints, the output column set (代码, 名称, 最新价, 涨跌幅, 昨收, 状态), sorting order, and failure semantics. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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, and it largely does: it documents `codes` as a list capped at 10 that "supports multiple formats per code," and `format` as one of 'markdown' | 'json' | 'csv' defaulting to 'markdown' — enum values the schema itself lacks. The phrase "multiple formats per code" is left unillustrated, which is the remaining ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus a batch scope: "Batch query for realtime quotes (max 10 stocks)." This is enough to distinguish it from the single-stock sibling get_realtime_quote, though the description never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the word "batch" and the "max 10" cap, so an agent can infer "use this for several codes, use get_realtime_quote for one." However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the single-quote alternative, and no guidance on what to do when more than 10 codes are needed.

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