chStockMinuteHistory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read operation via 'Get'. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, data window limits, or how much history is returned for a given date.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then a terse Args block. Every token earns its place, though the duplicated Chinese/English purpose line adds minor redundancy.

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 explained, and all parameters are documented. However, for a history-fetching tool with no annotations, the absence of any usage context or behavioral constraints leaves a real gap.

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, and it does: it documents the ticker format ('600519'), the allowed minute intervals (1/5/15/30/60), and the date format ('YYYYMMDD'). That covers all three required parameters with concrete syntax.

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 minute-level K-line history for one stock'), clearly distinguishing it from the day-level siblings like chStockFrontDayHistory. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the resource granularity ('minute') is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. chStockFrontDayHistory for daily, ChStockCurReal for realtime), nor any prerequisites or stated exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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