get_price_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds useful content by specifying that the return covers closing prices plus interval percentage change, which is not derivable from the annotations. It does not, however, discuss gaps, market/calendar handling, or data latency.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the returned data before the window qualifier, with no filler. It is perhaps slightly terse for a two-parameter tool with an undocumented ticker format, but nothing is wasted.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description adequately covers what data and interval are returned. What remains missing is the ticker symbol convention and whether a shorter history than requested is handled gracefully — minor but real gaps for a low-coverage schema.

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 carry the parameter meaning. It does clarify that 'days' counts trading days rather than calendar days and that the default window is a recent one, which is genuinely beyond the schema. But the 'ticker' parameter's expected format (symbol, market suffix) remains completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb (查询/query) and a specific resource (最近 N 个交易日收盘价和区间涨跌幅 — closing prices and interval percentage change over the last N trading days). It is a distinct resource from siblings such as get_quote (current quote) or get_key_financials, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_quote.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though get_quote is an obvious sibling for current price versus historical series. The 'last N trading days' framing implies historical analysis, but the agent must infer that itself.

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