Retrieve historical candlestick data for stocks with configurable periods and bar counts. Supports day, week, and month intervals up to 640 bars.
Get historical K-line (candlestick) data for a stock. Day/week/month periods, up to 640 bars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Stock code, e.g. "600519" or "sh600519" | |
| days | No | Number of bars (20-640, default 120) | |
| period | No | K-line period | day |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'up to 640 bars' and 'day/week/month periods', but these restate the input schema rather than revealing new behavior such as return format, error behavior, or whether the data is read-only. This is thin coverage for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
One clean sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Some words ('day/week/month periods', 'up to 640 bars') duplicate schema details rather than adding new information, so it is concise but not maximally informative.
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?
The input side is fully covered by the schema (code, days, period), so an agent can construct a valid call. However, there is no output schema and the description never describes the shape of a K-line response, leaving the agent to guess how to consume the result. For a simple read tool this is a moderate gap, not a fatal one.
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 100%, and the schema documents defaults, ranges, and enum values for all three parameters. The description's mention of periods and bar limit adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 opens with 'Get historical K-line (candlestick) data for a stock', naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. The 'historical' qualifier and the K-line/candlestick terminology distinguish it from the sibling tools get_quote and search_stock even without naming them.
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 word 'historical' implies this tool is for past bar data rather than current quotes, but the description never tells an agent when to prefer it over get_quote or search_stock, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.