实时数据/稀土掘金热榜

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about the tool's behavior—such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time data, or involves any side effects. This leaves critical operational traits unspecified for a tool presumably fetching dynamic data.

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 extremely concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It consists only of the tool name repeated, which fails to provide meaningful content. While brevity is present, it lacks the necessary structure or front-loaded information to guide an agent effectively, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.

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 tool's complexity (likely involving dynamic data fetching) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or any usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to understand or invoke the tool correctly in a real-world scenario.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter details. A baseline score of 4 is applied since no parameter information is required, and the description doesn't misleadingly imply parameters.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or differences from sibling tools like '实时数据/知乎热榜' or '实时数据/微博热搜', leaving the agent with no information about selection criteria or appropriate use cases.

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