Stock Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose data source freshness (real-time vs. delayed), rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The mention of 'via Binance' for crypto hints at a specific source but lacks detail.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and scope. It is front-loaded and to the point, with no wasted words.

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 complexity (7 parameters, multiple markets, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return formats, data granularity (daily, hourly?), or any limitations. The comprehensive schema partially compensates, but the description leaves gaps.

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 the individual parameter descriptions in the schema are already comprehensive. The tool-level description adds no extra parameter context beyond summarizing the tool's purpose. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves historical market data for stocks and crypto assets, listing supported markets (A股, 美股, etc.). It is specific about the verb and resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like stock_data_minutes, which may imply a different granularity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as basic_info, fund_data, or stock_data_minutes. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclude scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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