stock_us_hist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the data source (Eastmoney), the return type (pandas.DataFrame), and the symbol-sourcing prerequisite — useful context, but no discussion of date handling, rate limits, or failure 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?

The docstring format front-loads the purpose line and then lists parameters compactly. The ':type' lines duplicate the ':param' lines and add some noise, but overall it is scannable and free of padding.

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 historical-data tool with no output schema, the description covers parameters and return type adequately. It omits the expected date format (the schema defaults suggest YYYYMMDD, e.g. 19700101) and the symbol prefix convention (the default '105.MSFT' hints at a market prefix) that the symbol-fetching note does not explain.

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% and the schema declares no enums, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It documents all five parameters, including the explicit value sets for period ({'daily','weekly','monthly'}) and adjust (qfq/hfq/不复权) and the required symbol provenance, which the schema does not convey at all.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: US stock daily quotes from Eastmoney (东方财富网-行情-美股-每日行情), which is enough to distinguish it from the many macro/fund siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named siblings stock_us_daily or stock_us_hist_min_em, so an agent must still infer scope.

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 gives one genuinely useful operational rule: the symbol must be sourced from ak.stock_us_spot_em()'s `代码` field. That is real usage guidance. But it offers no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance (e.g., versus stock_us_daily for Sina data or stock_us_hist_min_em for intraday), leaving the choice to inference.

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