bond_zh_hs_cov_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the data source (Sina Finance), a rate-limit warning ('大量抓取容易封 IP'), and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). It does not describe date-range or pagination behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the parameter/return notes are useful given the lack of schema descriptions. However, the inclusion of RST field tags like ':type symbol: str' and ':rtype: pandas.DataFrame' is partly redundant with the schema, and the URL adds some clutter. It is adequately concise but not maximally economical.

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 low-complexity one-parameter historical data fetch with rich annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, return type, and a rate-limit warning. It omits details such as whether it returns full history or a fixed window and does not route among sibling tools, but it is largely complete for correct use.

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 defines the single 'symbol' parameter as a Shanghai/Shenzhen convertible bond code and gives a concrete example ('sh010107'), which is essential for correct invocation. It does not explain format constraints beyond the example, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 a specific verb and resource: fetching historical daily K-line data for Sina Finance Shanghai/Shenzhen convertible bonds. It contrasts implicitly with siblings like bond_zh_hs_cov_spot and bond_zh_hs_cov_min through '历史行情数据' and '日 K 线数据', but it never names an alternative to clearly distinguish itself from all related tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bond_zh_hs_cov_spot (spot quotes) or bond_zh_hs_cov_min (minute data). The note about mass scraping causing IP bans is a caveat, not selection guidance.

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