stock_zh_a_hist_tx

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating that volume is standardized to shares and amount to yuan, and by listing adjust options. It does not mention rate limits or data delays, but the unit normalization is a notable addition.

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 a compact, well-structured docstring: a title line, a URL example, and parameter/return definitions. Every line is informative, non-redundant, and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, return type, and unit normalization, which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it does not specify the expected date format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) or how missing data is handled, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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 compensates with a complete docstring for all five parameters, including symbol format, date semantics, adjust choices with Chinese labels, and timeout constraints. This provides significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with "腾讯证券-日频-股票历史数据" (Tencent Securities daily stock historical data), which clearly identifies the resource, source, and frequency. The docstring specifies it returns historical quote data as a pandas DataFrame, distinguishing it from spot or intraday tools in the sibling list.

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 use for daily historical stock data from Tencent, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons. It does not mention when not to use this tool or how it differs from related tools like stock_zh_a_hist or stock_zh_a_daily.

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