A股分红历史

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions data types but omits details like data frequency, historical range, whether only A-shares, rate limits, or error handling. The lack of behavioral context limits agent decision-making.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the description efficiently communicates core functionality.

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?

With no output schema, the description should outline return fields. It mentions basic data types but lacks a structured list of fields (e.g., dividend date, amount, type). For a simple 2-parameter tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters (symbol, limit) but enriches understanding of the output by listing data types (派息、送股、转增). This is marginal value, so score remains 3.

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 it retrieves historical dividend data for A-share stocks, listing specific types (派息、送股、转增) and a purpose (分析股息率和分红政策). It distinguishes from other stock tools like stock_prices or stock_financials by focusing solely on dividends.

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 description implies use for dividend analysis ('用于分析股息率和分红政策') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_financials or stock_info. No direct comparison or conditions for use/avoidance are provided.

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