rv_from_stock_zh_a_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, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds context about data source (Eastmoney), cleaning/formatting, and return columns, but does not disclose limitations, rate limits, or error behavior beyond that. It adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a URL and a detailed parameter list. The URL is somewhat unnecessary noise, but the rest is informative and well-organized. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, though slightly verbose due to the docstring-style parameter documentation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the return type and columns, parameter semantics, data source, and purpose. It lacks usage guidance and potential pitfalls, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes a full docstring explaining each parameter's meaning, type, format, and allowed values. For example, period lists {'1','5','15','30','60'} and adjust explains options like qfq and hfq. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 fetches stock minute-level data from Eastmoney, cleans it, and formats it for yz realized volatility calculations. This specific verb+resource+purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_zh_a_hist_min_em which likely returns raw minute data without the yz-specific formatting.

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 implies usage for obtaining minute data in the yz realized volatility format but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusionary conditions or mentions of alternative tools (e.g., raw minute data via stock_zh_a_hist_min_em), so guidance is only implied via the purpose.

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