get_kline

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It discloses the data source and asserts stability, which is useful context, but says nothing about read-only nature, rate limits, latency, or failure modes. An output schema exists so return-shape omission is acceptable, leaving a moderately thin behavioral profile for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a dense but scannable semicolon-separated list of parameter constraints. No filler sentences, though the telegraphic style is terse rather than polished.

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?

Parameter semantics are fully covered and an output schema handles return values, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly. The missing piece is routing guidance relative to the five sibling market-data 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% with no enums, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It covers all four: accepted symbol formats ('600519'/'sh600519'/'sz000001'), period values (day/week/month), adjust values (qfq/hfq/none), and the count range 1-800. It does not restate defaults, but it substantially compensates for the empty schema.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (fetch A-share K-line data) and even identifies the data source (Tencent) and its stability. It clearly differs in resource type from siblings like get_fund_flow or get_stock_news, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named despite the sibling set containing other market-data endpoints. The '腾讯源,稳定' note hints a source trade-off exists but never says what to choose instead or when.

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