get_northbound_history

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

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true，描述未重复安全性但补充了 market 与 stock 两个查询范围的语义差异，提供了部分上下文。未提及返回格式、分页或默认行为，但只读工具已由注解覆盖基本安全面，描述附加价值中等，符合无矛盾且有一定补充的 3 分档。

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?

描述仅用一句中文，直接点明核心功能并解释 scope 分支，信息密度高且无冗余信息，符合前载和简洁要求。

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?

工具为只读历史数据查询，schema 完整，注释说明 readOnly，描述已覆盖主用途和 scope 分支。虽未说明返回格式或与兄弟工具的区别，但结合名称和上下文足够支持调用；相较于简单工具所需的信息，描述达到基本完整，故评 4 分。

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?

输入 schema 覆盖率达 100%，所有参数在 schema 中均有完整描述（如 scope 的 enum 含义、symbol 必填条件、direction 默认方向）。描述仅概括了 scope 的分支，未提供超出 schema 的额外语义，如日期格式、方向默认值等，因此按基线评为 3。

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?

描述明确以“获取北向资金历史数据”点出动词与资源，并通过 scope 区分 market 与 stock 两种维度，与 get_northbound_realtime、get_northbound_holding_rank 等兄弟工具在名称和功能上形成清晰区分，属于具体且区分性强的目的说明。

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?

描述隐含了“历史”与“实时/排名”的使用场景差异，但未显式说明何时应使用本工具而不用备选工具，也没有列出 alternatives 或 when-not。属于依赖名称和上下文的隐含用法，未提供明确的取舍指导。

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