stock_intraday_sina

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the source URL and return type, which provides some context, but it does not disclose any caveats like required symbol prefix format ('sz'/'sh'), date format, or behavior for invalid dates. It does not contradict the 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 compact and front-loaded with the title. It includes the source URL, parameter docs, and return type in a docstring format. The URL is somewhat verbose but serves as an example. No unnecessary prose; every line contributes to understanding the tool's interface.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it does mention '分时数据' and 'pandas.DataFrame'. However, it omits critical invocation details like the exchange prefix in the symbol (e.g., 'sz', 'sh') and the exact date format (YYYYMMDD), which are only inferable from defaults. For a simple tool, the description is adequate but incomplete for a first-time user.

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 provides parameter names and types (symbol: 股票代码, date: 交易日) but does not explain format requirements. The URL example shows symbol='sz000001', and the schema defaults give date='20240321', which are helpful but not explicitly described. The description adds partial semantic value but leaves format ambiguity.

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 '新浪财经-日内分时数据' (Sina Finance intraday minute data) and indicates a data fetch with a URL and return type. This clearly conveys the tool's function of retrieving intraday stock data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like stock_intraday_em or stock_zh_a_hist_min_em, relying mainly on the 'sina' in the name.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention any distinguishing use cases, such as preferring it for Sina-specific data or its unique attributes. There is no exclusion or alternative reference.

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