获取板块成分股

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

The description mentions automatic failover across multiple data sources, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any rate limits, leaving 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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral note. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 list tool with three parameters, the description covers purpose and a notable behavior (failover). However, with no output schema, the description does not indicate return format, error behavior, or sample output, leaving some incompleteness.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions and examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 retrieves constituent stock lists for industry or concept sectors with specific examples of board names, making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like stock_sector_spot or stock_sector_fund_flow_rank, which could cause confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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