A股股权质押

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool '获取' (fetches) data, implying a read-only operation, but omits details like rate limits, data freshness, or any constraints. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the core action and data categories without fluff. Every word serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 simple parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It could be improved by hinting at the output structure, but for its complexity level it is largely complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions of 'mode' and 'limit'. It reinforces the purpose but offers no new semantic value.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves A-share equity pledge data, including industry statistics and market-level pledge ratios. The verb '获取' (get) and specific resource 'A股股权质押数据' clearly define the action and scope. Among siblings, no other tool covers equity pledge data, so it is well-differentiated.

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 other stock-related tools. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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