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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two meaningful traits: the tool is paid and requires a Key, and days accepts only the values 1 or 5. It stops short of describing rate limits, error behavior, or data freshness, but covers the operationally important constraints.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and usage trigger, then uses bold warnings for the two key gotchas (kline distinction, days restriction) and the paid note. Dense with emoji/bold but every clause earns its place; slightly busy formatting keeps it from a 5.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, when-to-use, the sibling alternative, parameter constraints, and the paid requirement — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by emphasizing that days has only two valid values and that 2/3/4 are rejected, which the schema description does not state explicitly. It adds nothing new on code.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: per-minute price plus cumulative volume for the current day or last 5 days. It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling ashare_kline by contrasting 分时 (one price + cumulative volume per minute) with OHLC candles, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrasing ('今天分时/盘中走势/日内走势/近 5 日分时') and names the alternative tool (ashare_kline with period=m1/m5) with the condition that selects it. Also states the days constraint and the paid-Key prerequisite, leaving little to inference.

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