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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real weight and adds valuable non-schema facts: it is a paid tool billed once per call, data only exists from 2026-05-27, and a single query is capped at 92 days. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior when the range is exceeded.

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: purpose first, then cost, then availability and range limits. Every sentence adds information an agent needs no other way, with no filler.

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?

For a read-only, 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the data is (hourly OHLCV, ascending), what it costs, and the valid query window. A note on what happens at the range limit or the response shape would close the remaining gap.

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%, and every parameter already documents its format and constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the 92-day span and start-date floor duplicates what the schema already says rather than adding new semantics such as accepted ID values or timezone handling.

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: retrieving precious-metals historical quotes, with granularity (hourly OHLCV) and ordering (ascending by time). It never names or contrasts the closest sibling, get_kline, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'history' and 'kline' itself.

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?

Usage is only implied through the word '历史' and the granularity note. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_realtime or get_kline, and no stated prerequisites beyond the constraints.

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