kline

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions data is 'OHLCV' which discloses the return content, and the period parameter implies time-series behavior. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool returns historical data only (no real-time), pagination, or data source limitations. The description adds some value but is not rich.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the purpose. No waste, but it is too brief for a data-heavy tool; still, without extra detail, it remains concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered there. The period defaults are in the schema. Missing are usage context (historical vs real-time) and data fidelity notes, but for a simple OHLCV tool this is minimally adequate.

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 100%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('K-line (candlestick/OHLCV) data for a stock'). It defines the resource more precisely than just 'kline' and distinguishes it from price-only tools like stock_quote, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools (stock_quote, stock_quote_batch) suggest price data tools, but the description doesn't clarify when K-line is preferred over a simple quote. The context is implied by 'K-line' being candlestick data but not stated.

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