get_kline

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

No annotations are provided, so behavioral transparency falls on the description. It discloses the asset type (A-shares), supported periods, and forward-adjustment, but does not mention output format, default date range behavior, or any limits. This is honest but incomplete.

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 description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the most important qualifiers. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

Although simple, the tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description should explain at least the expected return values or default date range. It captures core use but omits these completeness elements, making it adequate yet gapped.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly stating that data is front-adjusted and limited to A-share K-lines, which helps interpret the 'code' and 'period' parameters meaningfully.

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 specifies the verb '获取' (get) and a clear resource: 'A股历史K线数据' (A-share historical K-line data), while explicitly noting periods and front-adjustment. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_realtime_quote and get_technical_indicators.

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 description implies use for historical K-line data by its name and content, and sibling names suggest alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention exclusions. The guidance is adequate but relies on inference.

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