get_realtime_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get real-time stock market data' without disclosing traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 concise with two sentences and no unnecessary words. However, it is not structured (e.g., bullet points) and could be more efficient by front-loading key info.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it does not clarify what the return data looks like (e.g., price, volume), which would help the agent understand the output.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that 'eastmoney_direct' supports all A, B, H shares, which provides context for the source parameter. No further semantics are added for the symbol parameter.

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 real-time stock market data and mentions the 'eastmoney_direct' source supports all A, B, H shares. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_hist_data (historical data) or financial statement tools, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 (e.g., when to choose xueqiu vs eastmoney vs eastmoney_direct). There are no conditions or exclusions mentioned.

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