个股历史行情

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the breadth of available data (tick data, pre-market data) beyond what the schema shows, but it does not mention permissions, data sources, market coverage (e.g., A-shares only), or any limitations. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and enumerates data types without filler or redundant phrasing. Every clause adds information.

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 description advertises tick data and pre-market data, but the schema offers no parameter that selects those data types, creating a request-semantics gap. It is unclear whether 'limit' applies to all data types and how minute_period interacts with period. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but input semantics are still underspecified.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it leaves the relationship between 'period' and 'minute_period' ambiguous — there is no explanation of how to request minute data versus daily data.

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 opens with the verb '获取' (retrieve) and names the resource '个股历史行情' (individual stock historical market data), then enumerates specific granularities: daily/weekly/monthly K-line, minute lines, tick data, and pre-market data. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stock_quote (current quotes) and individual_info (company profile) by anchoring on historical data.

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 word '历史' implies this tool is for historical data requests rather than real-time quotes, so usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated. However, no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance are provided, and the description does not differentiate it from related tools like stock_tech_indicators or market_data_query.

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