gangtise_day_kline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool is historical only and hints at automatic sharding for 'all' security, but does not disclose rate limits, output format, or potential side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this is insufficient for agents to fully understand tool behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, efficiently conveying key information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers market scope, historical nature, and bulk data handling, but lacks details about the return format (e.g., typical fields like open, close). This is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 value by elaborating on the 'all' option for security with auto-sharding behavior and the role of startDate/endDate for full market pulls. This context goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 queries A-share historical daily K-line data for Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing markets, and explicitly distinguishes from real-time data by referencing gangtise_realtime. It also explains the 'all' option for full market data with automatic sharding, making the purpose specific and differentiated from siblings.

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 advises using gangtise_realtime for intraday data, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention other market-specific siblings like gangtise_day_kline_hk or gangtise_day_kline_us, though their names imply usage for other markets. The guidance is good but could be more comprehensive.

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