gangtise_day_kline_hk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly notes '仅历史' (historical only) and excludes real-time usage, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as read-only nature, data limits, rate limits, or response format. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 compact sentence with a parenthetical note, containing no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the exclusion guidance. Every word contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (historical K-line data), good schema descriptions, and common domain knowledge, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that it returns daily OHLC data, but the 'K line' term and field parameter imply that. Without an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role among siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for fields like security, startDate, endDate, limit, and field are self-explanatory. No additional context is needed.

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 the tool's purpose: querying historical daily K-line data for Hong Kong stocks. It distinguishes from other tools by specifying '港股' (HK stocks) and contrasts with real-time data via gangtise_realtime. The sibling tools include other day_kline variants for different markets, and this tool is uniquely identified by name and description.

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 explicitly tells when to use (historical) and when not (real-time), and recommends an alternative (gangtise_realtime). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other day_kline tools for different markets (e.g., gangtise_day_kline for A-shares), leaving some ambiguity. Still, the 'HK' in name and '港股' provide implicit guidance.

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