get_hist_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions data support for A, B, H shares but omits details like rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or whether adjustments affect output. This is insufficient for a complex 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence and a fragment. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing key features) without becoming verbose.

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 many sibling tools and 9 parameters, the description is minimally complete. It distinguishes the data source capability but does not address the range of parameters (e.g., intervals, indicators). The existence of an output schema helps, but the description alone leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full capabilities.

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 achieves 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema; the mention of 'eastmoney_direct' support is somewhat redundant with the source enum. Minimal added value.

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 stock market data. Mentioning 'eastmoney_direct' support for A, B, H shares helps differentiate from sibling fundamental tools, but could be more explicit about the data type (price/volume) versus financial statements.

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 siblings like get_realtime_data or get_financial_metrics. The description does not explain prerequisites or context for choosing this over alternatives.

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