stock_zh_index_daily

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 covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that: heavy scraping risks an IP ban, which tells the agent to throttle. It still does not say how much history is returned or whether there is pagination.

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?

Compact docstring form with the source, rate-limit caveat, and doc link front-loaded. Some waste in the redundant :return/:rtype pair, which restates what the type line already conveys.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers source, param format, and a caveat. It is still missing the coverage window (does it return the full history? any date filtering?) and whether the returned DataFrame has a fixed column layout, which an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does explain that symbol is an index code and gives a concrete example format (sz399998), which is more than the schema provides, but it omits the sh/sz prefix convention and never mentions the schema's default of sh000922, so behavior when the parameter is omitted is undocumented.

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 the source (新浪财经), the resource (指数 历史行情数据), and the return type, so an agent knows it fetches historical daily index quotes. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling em/tx variants by naming Sina as the source, though it never explicitly contrasts with stock_zh_index_daily_em or stock_zh_index_daily_tx.

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 only guidance is the rate-limit warning about IP bans; there is no statement of when to choose this Sina-backed tool over the EM or TX siblings, nor any prerequisites. The sphinx-style param hints do not constitute usage guidance.

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