获取美股/港股历史价格

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

The description adds one behavioral detail: automatic failover of multiple data sources. However, with no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose other important behaviors such as rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or what happens when a symbol is not found. It partially compensates but is not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., OHLCV), what technical indicators are included, how the 'limit' parameter works (e.g., number of days), or provide examples. The tool is simple but could benefit from more context for effective use.

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% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter's type, default, and meaning. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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's function: obtaining historical price data and technical indicators for US and Hong Kong stocks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_realtime and stock_tech_indicators_us by combining historical prices and indicators, and mentions multi-source failover. However, it could be more specific about the type of indicators included.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stock_prices, stock_realtime, or stock_tech_indicators_us. With many sibling tools, the absence of usage context makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool.

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