取最近 N 天新增的在招岗位（按 first_seen / posted 判定），用于做增量同步。示例: daily_delta(days=1, limit=200)。按次计费 $0.20 USDC。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "daily_delta"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| sector | No | ||
| include_stale | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the inclusion criterion (first_seen/posted) and per-call pricing of $0.20 USDC, but says nothing about auth, pagination, return shape, or what include_stale actually changes.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core semantics, followed by a usage example and pricing. No filler, though the pricing sentence sits awkwardly at the end rather than being folded into cost context.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage on four parameters, the description leaves significant gaps: two parameters unexplained and no indication of what a result row contains. It does not do enough for a tool of this parameter complexity.
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 0%, so all four parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description explains days ('最近 N 天') and shows limit in the example, but sector and include_stale are never mentioned and limit's bounds/behavior are unstated.
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?
States a specific verb and resource with scope: newly added active job postings within the last N days, judged by first_seen/posted, for incremental sync. The 'incremental' framing implicitly contrasts with bulk_snapshot, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Gives a use context ('用于做增量同步') and a concrete call example, which implies when to reach for it. It never states when not to use it or names an alternative such as bulk_snapshot for full pulls, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.