index_global_hist_em

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the return type is a pandas DataFrame and that the symbol can be fetched from another function. It does not reveal behavioral traits like date range coverage, data frequency, or output columns, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 compact docstring with a title, URL, parameter explanation, and return type. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Each line has a clear function with no redundant text.

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 is simple with one optional parameter, but the description only states that it returns historical market data as a DataFrame. It lacks details about the data columns, date range, frequency, or any limitations. Since there is no output schema, these missing details make it somewhat incomplete for an agent.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains that 'symbol' is the index name and instructs how to obtain it via another API function, plus provides a default value. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema, though it could enumerate valid symbols or formats.

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 names the tool as providing historical market data for global indices from Eastmoney, with a specific source URL. It identifies the action (retrieve historical quotes) and resource (global index) distinctly. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like index_global_hist_sina, but the name and URL make the source evident.

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 mentions that the symbol can be obtained via ak.index_global_spot_em(), which gives a hint on input sourcing. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or preferred scenarios. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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