获取贵金属期现基差

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mostly restates the title and gives a purpose, but does not disclose the data frequency, units, calculation method, return format, or whether historical or current data is returned.

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 sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the use-case clause adds useful context without bloating the definition.

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 one fully documented optional parameter, so the description is minimally sufficient for invoking it. However, without an output schema, the description omits return shape, data interval, units, and whether both futures and spot series are included.

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%: the 'metal' parameter already documents supported values (黄金, 白银) and its default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level 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 states a specific verb ('获取'), a clear resource ('贵金属期货与现货价格的基差数据'), and a use case (market expectations and arbitrage). This distinguishes it from siblings like futures_basis (general basis) and pm_spot_prices (spot prices only).

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 use case '用于判断市场预期和套利机会' implies when the tool is relevant, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over futures_basis or other precious-metals tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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