获取外汇历史汇率

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says historical data is returned; it does not mention return format, ordering, date range semantics, data frequency, or pagination behavior. This is a notable gap for a 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 a single concise sentence with the core functionality front-loaded and the purpose stated at the end. There is no redundant wording or 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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters that are well documented in the schema, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned historical data looks like. An agent can call the tool, but may be uncertain how to interpret the response.

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 the schema already documents limit and symbol, including defaults and supported currency pairs. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource: '获取指定货币对的历史汇率数据' (get historical exchange rate data for specified currency pairs). It also adds a distinct use case, '分析汇率走势和波动', which separates it from the sibling fx_rates tool through the explicit '历史' (historical) qualifier.

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?

The description implies usage for trend and volatility analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over fx_rates or other alternatives. There is no exclusion or comparison guiding the agent toward the correct sibling.

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