stock_zh_a_minute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source (Sina, via the URL) and the minute-level granularity, plus adjust semantics, which is useful. It says nothing about rate limits, coverage windows, or whether the tool may return empty for certain symbols/periods.

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 Sphinx-style docstring pasted in, with a raw URL and a redundant ':return: specific data / :rtype: pandas.DataFrame'. The substantive content is front-loaded but there is non-earning cruft. Adequate but not tight.

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 read-only data-retrieval tool with full annotations and no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient: purpose, params and granularity are covered. It stops short of clarifying the schemas/columns returned or the relationship to the many sibling minute-data tools, which is the main remaining gap for correct selection.

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 carries the full burden and largely meets it: it documents symbol format (sh000300/sh600519), the valid period values (1, 5, 15, 30, 60), and the adjust modes (empty=unadjusted, qfq=forward, hfq=backward). This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema. Minor gap: it does not state defaults, though those are visible in the 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 title and description state a specific resource: minute-level historical quote data for stocks and stock indices, with a concrete example symbol. An agent can tell this is a minute-frequency historical data retrieval tool. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like stock_zh_a_hist_min_em or index_zh_a_hist_min_em (different data sources/formats).

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 indication of when this tool should be chosen over the many other minute/historical quote tools in the sibling set. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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