chStockFrontDayHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output is forward-adjusted daily K-line data, but gives no information on how much history is returned, the time range, permissions, or rate limits. For a data-fetch tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Purpose comes first, followed by the argument hint. Efficient, though the bilingual duplication and the inline 'Args:' fragment make it slightly less clean than optimal.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value structure needn't be explained, and a single required parameter is well covered by the example. However, key context for a history tool, such as the span of data or lookback behavior, is absent, leaving the agent partially informed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. It does add useful meaning by naming the parameter ('code') and giving a concrete ticker example ('600519'), clarifying format expectations beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 verb and resource: 'Get forward-adjusted daily K-line history for one stock.' This lets an agent distinguish it from market-wide history tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as chStockMinuteHistory to contrast the granularity.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only implied signal is 'for one stock,' which hints at single-ticker scope, but nothing tells the agent to prefer chStockMinuteHistory for intraday data or the market-level tools for aggregate history.

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