获取市场历史价格

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

Annotations are None, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that output uses 'standardized market fields' and includes technical indicators, plus the weekly restriction for US stocks. However, it doesn't say anything about data limits, pagination, data source, or whether this is read-only/safe. For a read-heavy market data tool with no annotations, a 3 is fair.

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?

Two short sentences, fully front-loaded with the core purpose, then supported by a compact scope sentence. Every clause earns its place, mentioning markets and unified standardized output without fluff.

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 has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The main gaps are naming sibling alternatives and clarifying data limits/pagination, but for a straightforward historical price tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 every parameter (asset, limit, market, period, symbol) already described in the schema. The description reinforces asset/market scope and mentions the technical-indicator output, and the weekly/US limitation, but adds little per-parameter depth beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it fetches historical prices and technical indicators for stocks/ETFs across A/H/US markets. It distinguishes itself from many siblings by naming unified market history + tech indicator retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly compare to similar tools like stock_indicators_hk/us or individual_hist.

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 description specifies supported asset types and markets (A股/H股/美股及ETF), and the market parameter enumerates sh/sz/bj/hk/us. The period field notes weekly doesn't support US stocks, providing a useful restriction. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling alternatives like stock_indicators_hk/us or individual_hist, but the scope is clear enough to infer.

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