get_minute_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. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, data source, date range constraints, or adjustment behavior. It merely restates the tool's purpose and reiterates the period enum values already present in the schema.

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 the key action and resource front-loaded. It is very concise, though the parenthetical period list is redundant with the schema and could be removed for even tighter phrasing. The structure is clean and scannable.

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?

With no output schema and a relatively simple tool, the description lacks essential context such as what the returned K-line data contains (e.g., OHLC, volume, timestamps), whether startDate/endDate are optional, and how this tool differs from the many sibling K-line tools. The absence of usage guidance and return-value details makes it incomplete for effective tool selection.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description's mention of '1/5/15/30/60 分钟' redundantly repeats the period enum, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specifies the action ('获取' / get), the resource ('A股分钟K线数据' / A-share minute K-line data), and the supported timeframes (1/5/15/30/60 minutes). It clearly identifies the tool's function and, through the 'A股' qualifier, distinguishes it from HK/US minute K-line tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from industry or concept minute K-line variants.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_history_kline for daily data or get_industry_minute_kline for sector data. The description only states what the tool does, without any context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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