get_earnings_price_history

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns price detail and IV crush per earnings day, but does not explain what 'price detail' includes (e.g., open, high, low, close, volume), the time window around earnings, or any rate limits or permissions. The behavioral details are insufficient.

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 short but includes redundant Chinese text that repeats the English meaning. It is not overly verbose, but the inclusion of multiple languages for the same content reduces conciseness. The core message is front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not fully specify what the tool returns. It mentions 'price detail + IV crush' without defining the structure or format. Additional constraints like number of earnings days or data frequency are missing, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the output.

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 input schema has one parameter 'code' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'code' represents (expected to be a stock ticker), leaving the agent to infer from context. This fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves 'per-earnings-day price detail + IV crush' for HK/US stocks. It specifies the resource (earnings day data) and the verb (Get), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_earnings_calendar.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other related tools such as get_earnings_calendar or get_kline. The only constraint given is 'HK/US stocks only', which is a restriction but not a usage scenario comparison.

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