stock_history_dividend_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the Sina Finance source URL and states it returns a pandas DataFrame, but provides no details on edge cases, rate limits, or data limitations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 docstring is structured and compact, using standard :param format. It repeats the Chinese title that appears in annotations and includes a full URL that may be superfluous, but the overall length is appropriate and information-dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return value's structure, but it only says '指定 indicator, stock, date 的数据' without specifying columns or data fields. It adequately covers the query parameters and return type, but leaves the agent uninformed about what the returned DataFrame actually contains.

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%, but the description fully documents all three parameters: indicator with explicit choices ('分红', '配股'), symbol as stock code, and date with a concrete format example ('1994-12-24'). This completely compensates for the schema gap and goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieving dividend and rights issue details from Sina Finance for a specific stock, date, and indicator. It provides a concrete source URL and names the exact data domain (分红配股详情), distinguishing it from the broader sibling stock_history_dividend by its indicator options and date-specific detail focus. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description simply lists parameters and the return type, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool over similar dividend/rights tools.

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