get_etf_option_daily_kline

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no extra behavioral context such as data format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It essentially restates the tool name, offering no additional transparency beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it largely paraphrases the tool name, so its informational value is limited despite its compactness.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives a minimal but acceptable understanding. It lacks details about return structure or how to obtain valid option codes, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'code' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is met. The description does not add further detail about code format or how to find valid codes, but the schema already carries the essential semantic weight.

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 '获取 ETF 期权合约日 K 线数据' clearly states the action (get) and resource (ETF option daily K-line), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_index_option_kline or get_etf_option_minute by specifying 'ETF 期权' and '日 K 线'.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource type, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_index_option_kline or get_history_kline. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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