获取股票历史价格

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions automatic failover across multiple data sources and the limitation of no crypto support. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, data freshness, or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes limitations and features without extraneous detail. Every word serves a purpose, achieving high conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could explain the return format. It mentions fetching prices and indicators but does not detail the structure or fields. Given the complexity of the tool (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks output details.

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 the input schema already describes all parameters thoroughly. The top-level description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, such as reiterating the crypto restriction. According to the guidelines, with high coverage, a baseline 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 it retrieves historical stock prices and technical indicators based on symbol and market, and explicitly excludes cryptocurrencies. While it distinguishes from generic siblings, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related tools like stock_prices_global.

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 usage for obtaining historical stock data with technical indicators, and explicitly states not to use for cryptocurrencies. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stock_realtime or stock_prices_global, and does not provide explicit when-not-to-use context.

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