stock_us_daily

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description does add genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing data-quality caveats – the incorrect adjustment factors for CIEN and for newly listed AI. It omits pagination, date coverage, and any rate-limit behavior.

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?

It is a docstring dump: a bare URL leads, followed by notes, then :param/:return/:rtype boilerplate. The essential scope and param meaning are present but not front-loaded, and the URL/rtype lines carry little selection 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?

With only two optional params, full annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and caveats. However, for a 'daily' history tool it never indicates the returned date range or whether the caller controls it, leaving a real gap about what the tool actually returns.

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 carry the load, and it does: it enumerates the adjust values ('', qfq, qfq-factor) with their meanings and points to get_us_stock_name for symbol resolution. Only mild ambiguity remains about symbol format (code vs name) given the 'FB' default.

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 identifies the source (新浪财经 US stocks) and links the data page, implying it returns US stock daily bars, but it never states the purpose in prose – the reader infers it from the name and URL. It also offers no differentiation from the many close siblings such as stock_us_hist, stock_us_spot_em, or stock_us_hist_min_em.

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 when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives among the several US-stock price tools. The only guidance is incidental: the symbol param points at get_us_stock_name for symbol lookup.

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