get_industry_kline

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, so the description needs to add extra behavioral context to earn credit. It only repeats the '支持复权' (supports adjustment) feature, which is already fully documented in the schema. No additional context about return format, pagination, rate limits, or other side effects is provided.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds the key qualifiers (period and adjustment). Every word earns its place, with no waste or redundancy.

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 tool is a read-only data retrieval with 100% schema coverage, but there is no output schema and no usage guidance. The description is adequate for a simple K-line fetch but does not clarify what the return data looks like or how to choose among the many sibling K-line tools. It is minimally complete but leaves noticeable gaps.

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%, with each parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely summarizes the period and adjust params. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('获取' / get), a resource ('行业板块历史 K 线数据' / industry sector historical K-line data), and the supported timeframes (日/周/月). This fully distinguishes it from minute-level and other market K-line tools.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_concept_kline, get_history_kline, or get_industry_minute_kline. The usage context is only implied by the name and the mention of daily/weekly/monthly periods. There are no exclusions or alternatives named.

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