stock_zh_kcb_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the upstream source URL and the rate-limit-style warning that bulk calls can get the caller IP-banned. It stops short of describing payload size or column layout.

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?

Front-loaded with the source and dataset, then the throttling caveat, then parameters. Sphinx-style :param/:return blocks are slightly redundant formatting, but no sentence is wasted and the critical warning sits early.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only says the return is a pandas.DataFrame of historical quotes – no mention of columns, date span, or pagination. Combined with the absence of any date-range parameters, an agent cannot predict the shape or coverage of the response, which is a meaningful gap 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 parameter meaning – and it does: symbol is explained as a market-prefixed code (e.g. sh688005), and adjust enumerates all five modes (default no adjust, qfq, hfq, hfq-factor, qfq-factor) with their semantics. That is exactly the enum information the JSON schema lacks.

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: Sina Finance historical daily quotes for STAR Market (科创板) stocks, with the concrete source page. It clearly reads as a historical-daily tool distinct from stock_zh_kcb_spot and stock_zh_a_daily, but it never explicitly names those alternatives, so differentiation is by name inference alone.

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?

Gives a genuinely useful operational condition ('大量抓取容易封IP' – heavy scraping risks an IP ban) that tells an agent to throttle. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance against the many sibling daily-history tools (stock_zh_a_daily, stock_hk_daily, index history tools), so the routing signal is implied rather than stated.

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