stock_zh_b_minute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds some behavioral context by explaining the 'adjust' parameter (qfq/hfq) and noting the data source URL, but it does not disclose additional traits such as rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. 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 description is fairly concise, covering purpose, source, and parameters in a compact block. The URL is slightly extraneous but not verbose. The docstring format is structured and easy to parse, though it could be more front-loaded with a clear one-line 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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must explain return values. It only says ':return: specific data' with rtype pandas.DataFrame, which is vague and lacks detail on columns or data structure. It also does not specify date range coverage or exchange scope, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer how to use the result.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: it documents 'symbol' with the example 'sh900901', gives the allowed values for 'period' (1, 5, 15, 30, 60), and explains 'adjust' values (empty for unadjusted, qfq for forward-adjusted, hfq for backward-adjusted). This adds essential 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 states it provides historical minute data for stocks and indices, which is a clear general purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention B-shares (as the name implies), making it difficult to distinguish from other Chinese stock minute-data tools like stock_zh_a_minute or stock_zh_a_hist_min_em. The example symbol sh900901 hints at B-shares, but that is in the parameter docs, not the purpose statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it is for B-share minute data or contrast with A-share tools. There is no 'when not to use' or named alternatives, so an agent cannot easily determine the right tool.

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