stock_zh_index_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that large-scale scraping can lead to IP bans, which is a rate-limit risk. It also discloses the data source via URL, enhancing transparency beyond structured fields.

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 appropriately sized: a one-line summary, a source URL, and structured docstring elements for parameters and return. It avoids redundancy for the most part, though the first line duplicates the annotation title. Overall, every part adds some value.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it states the data is historical index quotes and returns a pandas.DataFrame. However, it does not specify columns, date ranges, or frequency, which are important for an agent to know what to expect. The source URL partially compensates by allowing lookup of the exact page.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the parameter 'symbol' as an index code ('指定指数代码') with an example 'sz399998' and type str. This provides meaning beyond the raw schema property name and default value, though it does not enumerate valid symbol formats (e.g., sh/sz prefixes) exhaustively.

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 states this tool provides Sina Finance index historical market data ('新浪财经-指数-历史行情数据'), with a source URL and a specific symbol example. It identifies the provider (Sina) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like stock_zh_index_daily_em (Eastmoney) and stock_zh_index_daily_tx (Tencent), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a caution about IP bans ('大量抓取容易封 IP') but no context about preferred use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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