获取贵金属最近 N 个自然日的日级 K 线（开高低收）。免费工具，不计入调用次数（按 IP 限速）。适合看趋势、画图、做简要分析。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"goldid": "<goldid>"
},
"name": "get_kline"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | 最近 N 个自然日，默认 30，最大 60 | |
| goldid | Yes | 品种 ID（单个） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses quota behavior (free, does not count toward call count) and an IP-based rate limit, which materially affects how an agent should pace calls. It does not describe the response envelope, but the OHLC field set is at least named.
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: what it returns first, then cost/rate-limit context, then use cases. Nothing is redundant and the resource definition is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the data shape (OHLC), the time window, and operational constraints. It leaves only minor gaps, such as what an invalid goldid yields and where valid IDs come from.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the days default of 30 and maximum of 60. The description restates the 'last N calendar days' window but adds no meaning for goldid or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: retrieve daily-level K-line (OHLC) data for precious metals over the last N calendar days. The daily granularity implicitly separates it from a realtime sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
It offers use-case hints ('suitable for viewing trends, charting, brief analysis') but never states when to prefer this over get_realtime or get_history. Usage is implied rather than routed, leaving the alternative-selection decision to inference.
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.