reits_hist_min_em

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, thoroughly covering the safety profile. The description adds context by specifying the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and providing an example URL, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or response structure. This is adequate given the read-only, idempotent nature already disclosed.

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, containing a title line, an example URL, and docstring-style parameter/return lines. It is efficiently structured and front-loads the core purpose. However, the first line duplicates the title provided in the annotations, which is redundant. Overall, it is concise and scannable.

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 relatively simple with one optional parameter, good safety annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the parameter, return type, and shows an example, which covers the basics. However, it omits the distinction between minute and daily historical data (important given sibling tools), does not specify the returned data fields, and offers no usage context. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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 one parameter 'symbol' with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description explicitly defines ':param symbol: REITs 代码' and shows an example URL with a concrete code (508097), which gives the agent a clear understanding of the parameter's purpose. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool, though it does not explain accepted formats or how to discover valid codes.

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 states that the tool provides '历史行情' (historical market data) for Shanghai/Shenzhen REITs from Eastmoney, which is a clear resource and scope. However, it does not explicitly state that it returns minute-level data (despite the 'min' in the name) and does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'reits_hist_em'. The description is more of a noun phrase than a specific action, lacking a clear verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'reits_hist_em' or 'reits_realtime_em'. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply provides a parameter and return type, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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