获取外汇汇率

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves real-time quotes and normalizes output fields, but it does not explain what those standardized fields are, how current the data is, or any failure or limitation behavior. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It communicates the core action, resource, and output style efficiently.

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 one optional fully-documented parameter, so the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description only vaguely says "标准化字段", leaving the actual return structure unspecified. It also does not guide selection against fx_history.

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%, and the schema already documents the supported currency pairs and default value well. The description adds only the general idea of "major currency pairs," so it does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides.

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's action and resource: it fetches real-time exchange rate quotes for major currency pairs and outputs standardized fields. This is clear enough, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling tool fx_history beyond the word "实时" (real-time).

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 word "实时" implies the tool is for current/real-time rates rather than historical data, but there is no explicit statement about when to use fx_rates versus fx_history or other quote-related siblings. Usage context is only implied, not explicitly guided.

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