美股关键指标

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only 'get' operation but lacks details on permissions, data sources, return format, or limitations. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it is minimal.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the essential 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is vague about what 'key indicators' are returned. It does not explain the output format or provide additional context that would help a user understand the tool's capabilities fully. It is minimally viable but lacks depth.

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% (the only parameter 'symbol' is described as '股票代码'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 fetches key indicators from US stock financial reports, using a specific verb (获取) and resource (美股市场的股票财务报告关键指标). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_indicators_a and stock_indicators_hk by explicitly scoping to US stocks.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for US stock market financial indicators, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for A-shares use stock_indicators_a'.

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