机构持仓汇总

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only query by using '获取' (get) and adds a temporal qualifier '最新' (latest), but does not disclose the return format, data source, limitations, or any other behavioral traits. The description is minimal and leaves transparency 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 is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and subject. It contains no superfluous information and reads naturally, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it is vague about the exact contents of the returned data ('等信息' = 'and other information'), leaving questions about which specific institutional holdings and ratios are included. It is minimally viable but lacks full completeness.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'symbol' with description '股票代码' (stock code), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the latest institutional holdings and shareholding ratios for individual stocks, using a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('个股最新机构持仓与持股比例'). It effectively conveys the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like fund_holdings or stock_info.

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. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning any prerequisites, excluded use cases, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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