stock_hk_hist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it's a history/daily-quote fetch, but doesn't disclose things like potential rate limits, data source quirks, or how the default dates work (e.g., default start 19700101, end 22220101 might fetch a huge range). No contradiction 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 fairly compact and structured with param/type/return in docstring format. It's front-loaded with the source and URL. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating '每日行情' multiple times), but it's mostly efficient.

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 has no output schema, the description mentions return is 'pandas.DataFrame' but doesn't detail columns. The tool has 5 parameters, all optional with defaults, and the description explains most but not date formats or symbol format details. Given the complexity of a historical data tool and no output schema, the description 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains period choices ('daily', 'weekly', 'monthly'), adjust choices ('qfq', 'hfq', ''), and mentions symbol as a string with an example URL. However, it doesn't explain date formats (start_date/end_date) beyond '开始日期' and '结束日期', and the example symbol in URL (08367) differs from schema default (00593). The description adds some value but leaves gaps in date syntax and symbol format.

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 says it fetches Hong Kong stock daily market data from East Money ('东方财富网-行情-港股-每日行情'), with a URL example. It uses specific verbs like '每日行情' (daily quotes) and indicates resource (HK stocks) and data type (history). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like stock_hk_hist_min_em or stock_hk_spot_em, though the 'hist' in the name and '每日行情' imply historical daily data.

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: it's for retrieving HK stock daily/weekly/monthly historical data. It provides an example URL and parameter choices (period, adjust). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like stock_hk_hist_min_em or stock_hk_spot_em, and doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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