获取股票历史价格

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds multi-source failover support and an exclusion of cryptocurrencies. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, response latency, rate limits, or error handling. Some transparency but insufficient for a data retrieval 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core functionality and a critical limitation. No redundant words; every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and a key limitation but does not explain technical indicators, return format, or how failover works. Given the tool's complexity (multiple markets, periods, indicators) and lack of output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves historical prices and technical indicators by stock code and market. It explicitly excludes cryptocurrencies, which helps differentiate. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like stock_prices_us, which may cause ambiguity for US stocks.

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 provides a clear limitation (no crypto) but does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like stock_prices_us or stock_indicators. The context is present but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use and what alternatives exist.

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