fund_etf_hist_min_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), but does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or the exact DataFrame structure. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 well-organized docstring with title, URL, parameters, and return information separated clearly. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the data source. The structure is conventional, though the URL line adds moderate 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?

The description provides essential information: source, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks details on the returned columns, date range behavior, and usage guidance relative to siblings. In the absence of an output schema, the description should have clarified the return structure more fully.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining all parameters: symbol (ETF code), start_date, end_date, period choices, and adjust choices. However, date format and period units (minutes) are not explicitly stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 title '东方财富-ETF 行情' and return statement '每日分时行情' clearly indicate that the tool fetches minute-level ETF quotes from Eastmoney. The parameter list specifies symbol, dates, period, and adjust. However, it lacks an explicit verb like '获取' and does not differentiate from sibling tools that also provide ETF history (e.g., fund_etf_hist_em), relying on the name 'hist_min' for that distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. The URL example is not a usage guide. Given many siblings like fund_etf_hist_em and fund_lof_hist_min_em, this absence of usage context is a clear gap.

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