Retrieve historical K-line data for a single A-share stock with forward adjustment. Specify daily, weekly, or monthly periods to get price history for analysis.
获取单只 A 股的历史 K 线数据（前复权）。
Args: symbol: 股票代码，如 "600519"。 period: 周期，"daily"（日K，默认）| "weekly"（周K）| "monthly"（月K）。 count: 返回的 K 线根数，默认 30，最大 320。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| period | No | daily | |
| symbol | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the data is forward-adjusted (前复权), which materially affects returned prices. However, it never states that this is a read-only call, nor any limits, error behavior, or market-coverage caveats.
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 one-line purpose followed by a tight Args list; effortless to scan. The Args entries restate schema defaults (30, 'daily'), which is mildly redundant but reinforces the parameter contract at negligible cost.
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?
Output schema exists, so return fields need not be described, and all three parameters are fully specified. The only gap is the absence of any statement about read-only safety or data-source coverage, which matters somewhat given zero annotations.
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 Args block is doing all the work — and it succeeds. Symbol example ('600519'), period enum with defaults and meanings (daily/weekly/monthly), and count default of 30 with a maximum of 320 are all documented, which the bare schema does not convey.
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: '获取单只 A 股的历史 K 线数据（前复权）' — retrieve historical K-line data for ONE A-share, forward-adjusted. The '单只' (single stock) scoping implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_stock_quotes, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the wording: use it when you need OHLC history for one ticker rather than a quote or fundamentals. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives (e.g. get_stock_quote for the current price) is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.