stock_zh_a_cdr_daily

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds a valuable behavioral warning that large-scale scraping may lead to IP bans, and also specifies the return type as pandas.DataFrame. This provides context about rate limits and output format not present in the structured 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 reasonably concise with a clear front-loading of the tool's purpose and resource URL. The parameter docs are structured and useful, though the style is a bit docstring-like with some redundancy (e.g., repeated type information).

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 simple nature of a historical data retrieval tool and the rich annotations, the description adequately explains the data source, parameters, and return type. It lacks details about output columns or data adjustments, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting each parameter (start_date, end_date, symbol) with example values and Python types. This gives the agent meaningful context for constructing valid inputs, although it doesn't explicitly define date format constraints beyond examples.

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 providing Sina Finance A-share CDR individual stock historical market data, with a source URL. This distinguishes it from sibling stock history tools by its specific CDR focus, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'query'.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only includes a caution about IP bans from heavy scraping, which is a warning rather than usage direction. The CDR-specific scope is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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