get_index_option_kline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read operation. It adds the '日' (daily) frequency detail beyond the title but does not disclose output format, pagination, or other behavioral details. This is minimal added context over the annotations.

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 concise Chinese sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('获取指数期权合约日 K 线数据') and containing no superfluous words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read-only one-parameter tool, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the resource and frequency, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close sibling daily K-line tools like get_etf_option_daily_kline, nor describe the return shape. The standard K-line format is likely understood, so the gap is minor.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter 'symbol' with a description including an example ('io2504C3600'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that the symbol is an index option contract code, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and the precise resource '指数期权合约日 K 线数据' (index option contract daily K-line data). The qualifier '指数期权' distinguishes it from sibling daily K-line tools like get_etf_option_daily_kline and get_commodity_option_kline.

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 description implies usage for retrieving daily K-line data of index option contracts, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The context is clear from the wording, but exclusions are absent.

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