get_minute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the automatic sampling to ~40 points, which is useful. However, it omits details such as data latency, timestamp format, error behavior, or rate limits. The description adds some transparency but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 exceptionally concise: a single front-loaded sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a compact args list. There is no filler or redundancy; every word serves to clarify usage.

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 has an output schema (which explains the return format), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, and a behavioral note about sampling. It lacks explicit sibling comparison and potential error conditions, but for a simple read-only tool with a short parameter list, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'symbol' is a stock code and defining the enum-like 'period' options ('1d' for current day, '5d' for past five days). This goes well beyond the bare schema and clarifies both parameters effectively.

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's purpose: fetching intraday (minute-level) trend for the current day or past five days, with a specific behavioral note about auto-sampling to ~40 points. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and effectively differentiates it from siblings like get_kline (which likely provides daily K-line data).

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 implies usage context (when minute-level data for today or the past five days is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over get_kline or get_quote. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer under specific circumstances.

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