stock_zh_b_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: heavy scraping risks an IP ban, and the return is a pandas.DataFrame. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 and IP warning are front-loaded, but the remaining text is Sphinx docstring markup (:param:/:type:/:rtype:) that is information-dense yet verbose as prose, and the source URL adds little operational value for an agent.

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 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates well by documenting every parameter, the adjust modes, and the DataFrame return type. The main missing piece is explicit routing guidance against the many sibling stock-history tools.

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 parameter burden, and it does: it documents all four parameters with concrete examples (20201103, sh600000) and enumerates the adjust values (none/qfq/hfq/qfq-factor/hfq-factor) that are absent from the schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as not restating defaults.

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: historical daily quote data for B-shares from Sina Finance, and the tool name plus 'B股' distinguishes it from siblings like stock_zh_a_daily or stock_zh_b_minute. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus stock_zh_a_daily, stock_zh_b_minute, or stock_zh_b_spot. The only contextual hint is the IP-ban warning, which is a constraint rather than selection guidance, so an agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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