ChMarketDayHistory

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 does not disclose the history window, default lookback, granularity constraints, or whether the index must be a trading day, and there is no note on auth or limits. A read operation is implied by 'get', but nothing beyond that.

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?

Two short sentences plus an inline arg note, front-loaded with the Chinese and English statements of purpose. The bilingual duplication is redundant but useful for multilingual agents, so it is not wasteful.

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 values need not be described. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but a history tool should say what time span or default period it returns, which is missing here.

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 single 'code' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description's example ('000001' for 上证指数) is the only guidance on format and is genuinely useful. However, it omits constraints such as accepted prefixes or whether only index codes (not stock codes) are valid, so it only partially compensates.

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 verb and resource ('Get daily K-line history for an index'), so an agent can distinguish it from the stock/concept/industry history siblings by the word 'index'. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the scope is clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance. The agent must infer from the word 'index' that this is not the tool for individual stocks (ChStockCurReal, chStockFrontDayHistory) or concepts/industries. That inference is not stated.

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