index_hist_sw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond confirming the data is returned as a DataFrame. It does not disclose behavioral traits like data source limitations, rate limits, or column contents beyond the basic return type.

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 compact and structured as a docstring, with title, URL, parameter types, and return type in a logical order. Each line contributes value, though the raw URL could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core function, parameter meanings, and return type. However, it omits details such as the exact columns of the returned DataFrame, whether prices are adjusted, and any limitations of the data source, leaving minor gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining symbol as index code and period as a choice of {'day','week','month'}. It also provides a URL example with a concrete symbol code, adding useful context that the schema lacks.

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 index historical data ('指数历史数据') for a given symbol and period, with the URL and return type confirming this. It distinguishes from likely siblings like realtime or minute index tools by specifying '历史数据' (historical data), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as index_min_sw or index_realtime_sw. The description only documents parameters and return type, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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