option_sse_daily_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety traits. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and scope of data (all daily historical data), which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists, but details like data source, potential delays, or symbol format requirements are absent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a param and return docstring. Every line serves a purpose with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main description and easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the output DataFrame columns, how to obtain valid symbol codes, and the data source (Sina). With no output schema and many sibling tools, the absence of symbol format or data source context leaves gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 zero description coverage for the lone parameter 'symbol', but the description's docstring provides a basic meaning: '期权代码' (option code). This adds some value beyond the schema, though it lacks format specifics (e.g., examples, string length, or how to find valid codes). The default value '10003889' in the schema offers a clue but not sufficient guidance.

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 provides daily frequency data for a specified option ('指定期权的日频率数据') and returns all daily historical data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like option_sse_minute_sina (minute data) and option_sse_spot_price_sina (spot data), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb is implied as 'retrieve' or 'get', making the purpose clear.

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 other option-related tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context for choosing daily data over minute or spot data. The description only implies usage by stating the parameter, but lacks explicit selection criteria.

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