get_kline

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the core behavior well: returns historical K-lines, optionally enriches each bar with PE/PB/PS/market cap, enforces a 500-bar cap, and exposes adjustment modes (前复权/后复权/不复权). It does not disclose result ordering, pagination, or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup tool the disclosed traits are reasonably adequate, so a mid score is appropriate.

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?

A one-sentence intro front-loads the essential purpose, followed by a clean Args block. There is no wasted prose and the structure is scannable. Minor inefficiency: the Args block restates parameter names that already exist in the schema, but since the schema carries no descriptions, the repetition earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained. The description adequately covers purpose, all parameter semantics, and the valuation option. Gaps remain: no guidance on overlap with get_minute for intraday periods, no statement about result ordering, and no mention of the default values (count=60, adjust='before') that live only in the schema. Adequate but with clear missing context.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility and compensates well. All 5 parameters are documented: symbol as 股票代码, period with the full 12 valid values, count with the 500 max, adjust with the before/after/normal semantics, and with_valuation with its effect. Because the schema defines no enums, the explicit value lists in the description are genuinely valuable additions.

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 states a specific resource ('历史 K 线' - historical K-line) and an optional feature (including PE/PB/PS/market cap per bar). The verb 'get' in the name plus the resource makes the purpose clear. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling get_minute, which may also cover intraday bars given the period options include 1m/5m/.../120m, so an agent gets no help choosing between them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. No alternatives are named, no exclusions are stated, and there is no mention of how this relates to get_minute or get_quote for intraday needs. The only hint is '适合做估值分位分析' (suitable for valuation percentile analysis) attached to with_valuation, which is a use-case note but not guidance about selecting this tool versus siblings.

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