stock_zh_b_minute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context via the adjust semantics (empty=unadjusted, qfq=forward-adjusted, hfq=backward-adjusted), but says nothing about rate limits, data source quirks, or return shape, so it adds modest value beyond the annotations.

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 line is front-loaded, but the docstring format has waste: a bare URL, repeated defaults (':param symbol: sh900901' merely echoes the schema default), and a vague ':return: specific data'. It is serviceable 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, yet ':return: specific data / :rtype: pandas.DataFrame' is nearly content-free and does not describe columns or coverage. Parameters are well covered, but the return contract is under-specified for a data-retrieval tool.

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 burden, and it substantially does: it documents symbol with a concrete example (sh900901), the accepted period values (1, 5, 15, 30, 60 minutes), and the adjust modes (empty/qfq/hfq). This maps nearly all parameters to meaningful semantics, with only minor gaps (default values not restated).

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 names a specific verb+resource: retrieving minute-level historical quote data for stocks/indices, with an example symbol (sh900901) confirming the B-share scope. It is clear but does not explicitly position itself against siblings like stock_zh_b_daily (daily) or stock_zh_a_minute (A-share minute), leaving the reader to infer the 'B-share, minute-frequency' niche from the tool name and example.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives are provided. An agent is told what data comes back but not when to prefer this tool over its many daily/spot/A-share minute siblings.

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