index_min_sw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source URL, which are useful but not behavioral traits like rate limits or data granularity. No contradictions with annotations.

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 structured with a title, URL, and docstring, but the title is redundant with the annotations title and the URL adds length. It is not overly verbose, but some content could be trimmed for front-loading the core purpose. Overall, it is acceptably concise for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter data retrieval tool with strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description is adequately complete: it states the data type, parameter meaning, and return type. It lacks minor details like supported symbol ranges or the exact time series resolution (e.g., 1-minute, 5-minute), but these are not critical for basic use.

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 schema has one parameter (symbol) with no description (0% coverage), but the description explains ':param symbol: 指数代码' (index code) and specifies the default '801001' via schema. This adds essential meaning missing from the schema, though it does not elaborate on valid code formats or how to discover them.

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 identifies the tool as providing index minute data ('指数分时数据') sourced from Shenwan Hongyuan Research, and the URL specifies the exact data domain. It distinguishes from siblings like index_hist_sw (daily history) and index_zh_a_hist_min_em (different source) through the 'sw' suffix and source context, but lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'fetch' or 'get').

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, such as index_hist_sw for daily data or index_zh_a_hist_min_em for another source. It only states what it returns, with no exclusions or scenarios. The usage context is implied solely by the tool name and resource label.

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