全市场异动扫描

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It only states that real-time signals are scanned, but fails to disclose return format, whether the optional 'symbol' parameter filters results, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a read-only data tool.

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 front-loads the action (扫描) and scope (A股市场实时异动信号). It is concise with no filler or redundant content, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the parameter can filter by anomaly type, nor does it hint at the response structure (e.g., list of signals, timestamps, severity). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'symbol' parameter listing all 8 anomaly types. The description adds only redundant examples and does not clarify the misleading parameter name 'symbol' (which actually denotes anomaly type), so it adds no significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 scans real-time A-share market anomaly signals with specific examples like '火箭发射' and '大笔买入'. It uses a specific verb (扫描) and resource (A股市场实时的异动信号), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as stock_zt_pool_em that also track market extremes.

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 is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools that might be more appropriate for specific scenarios, such as using stock_zt_pool_em for limit-up pools.

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