get_us_history_kline

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

annotations 已提供 readOnlyHint=true，安全配置已有保证。描述仅补充了'历史'这一行为特性，说明返回的是历史数据而非实时行情，但未提及返回格式、分页、权限等其他行为细节，因此在注释基础上增加的上下文有限，符合3分基线。

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?

描述仅用一句话（'获取美股历史 K 线数据（日/周/月）'）就完整表达了工具的核心功能，无任何冗余信息，结构也符合前端加载重要信息的原则。

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?

工具为简单的历史数据查询，参数齐全且有只读注释，无输出 schema。描述虽简短但直接说明了用途和周期，但未提及返回数据的结构（如OHLCV字段），因此不算完全完整，但已足够清晰，给予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 的参数描述覆盖率达100%，每个参数（adjust、period、symbol、startDate、endDate）都有详细说明。描述未重复参数信息，也没有额外补充，因此根据高覆盖率的基线规则给予3分。

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?

描述使用明确的动词'获取'和资源'美股历史 K 线数据'，并提及日/周/月周期，清晰表明工具的功能是获取美股历史K线。与同列表中的 get_hk_history_kline 和 get_history_kline 区分明显，因为描述明确标注了市场（美股）。

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?

描述明确给出了使用场景（美股历史K线），上下文清晰，但没有明确排除或替代工具。不过，考虑到名称中'us'和描述中的'美股'，使用时机是明确的，因此给予4分。

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