gangtise_day_kline_us

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially reveals behavior: it's read-only (query), only historical data, and automatic sharding when using 'all'. However, it lacks details on data source, freshness, rate limits, or confirmation that no destructive actions occur. A 3 is appropriate as it provides some but not rich context.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence efficiently states the core purpose and directs to an alternative. The second adds an important usage note. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, alternative tool, and special parameter usage. It is understandable and actionable. However, it could be improved by briefly mentioning the expected output format (e.g., OHLCV fields) or common limitations, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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% and all parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the 'all' magic value for security, the required pairing of security='all' with startDate/endDate, and the automatic sharding behavior. It also gives code format examples, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool queries US stock historical daily K-line data for NYSE/NASDAQ/AMEX, with explicit code format examples (AAPL.O/.N/.A). It distinguishes itself from real-time data by referencing gangtise_realtime, and from other day_kline siblings by market focus (US vs HK vs A-shares).

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 states when to use (historical US daily data) and gives a direct alternative for real-time data (gangtise_realtime). It also explains the 'all' parameter usage for full market pulls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or other alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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