get_realtime_quote

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: it discloses that today's data comes from minute K-line aggregation rather than daily bars, and that the date and change are recalculated to be correct. It stops short of stating data latency, refresh cadence, or behavior when the market is closed.

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?

Well front-loaded with an explicit Args/Returns structure, but there is redundancy: the return fields are described twice (once as prose about correct date and change calculation, again in the Returns field list), and the Chinese field names are unexplained to a non-Chinese reader.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description lists the returned fields, so return values are covered. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; the remaining gap is behavioral edge cases such as market-closed or invalid-code handling.

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 description fully compensates: it enumerates four accepted code formats (Tongdaxin, pure numeric with auto-exchange detection, Baostock, JoinQuant) and gives the three valid format values with the default. Without this text the parameters would be unguessable.

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 ('Fetches realtime quote snapshot') scoped to a single Chinese A-share stock, which implicitly separates it from the multi-symbol sibling get_realtime_multi_quote and from historical tools like get_historical_k_data. An agent can identify the correct tool from this sentence alone.

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?

'Quick overview of current stock status' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives (e.g., multi-quote for several codes, intraday kline for detail). Usage must be inferred from the name and the word 'snapshot'.

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