获取市场历史价格

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'standardized output fields' but does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or limitations (e.g., weekly period not supported for US stocks). This is insufficient for a tool that likely fetches external data.

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 a single concise sentence with a clear front-loaded verb. It wastes no words, but could be considered too sparse given the tool's complexity. It lacks structured detail, but it is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, earning a 4.

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 complexity (5 params) and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify how it relates to stock_indicators_* tools, lacks usage guidance, and provides no behavioral context (e.g., limitations, default behavior). The output schema exists, but no return values need explaining.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that the tool returns both prices and indicators, which is not explicitly stated in any parameter description.

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 for stocks and ETFs, with a specific verb ('获取') and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like stock_indicators_a/hk/us, which likely overlap in offering technical indicators.

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. The description doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., not for crypto) or point to sibling tools for other asset classes. Schema constraints (like market limitations) are in the schema, not the description.

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