A股财务指标对比

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool gets financial indicators across dimensions but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any data limitations, authentication needs, rate limits, or response behavior. The description is too brief for safe agent invocation.

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 is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is relevant, and there is no unnecessary information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what data is returned (e.g., specific metrics, structure). It only mentions '多维度分析' vaguely. This is insufficient for a tool that likely returns complex financial data, especially with many sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description for the 'symbol' parameter including format examples. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取' and resource 'A股个股详细财务指标', clearly indicating it retrieves detailed financial indicators for A-share stocks. It mentions multiple dimensions (盈利, 偿债, 运营) and distinguishes from siblings like stock_financials_us (US-focused) and stock_valuation_compare (valuation-focused).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous related siblings (e.g., stock_indicators, stock_financials_us), explicit context for selection is missing. The agent must infer usage from the tool's name and title.

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