获取上海金银基准价

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 only states the purpose and importance, but does not disclose whether the tool returns a list of historical benchmark prices, the response structure, update frequency, or the meaning of the limit parameter in behavioral terms.

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 purpose front-loaded. The added context about being an important domestic pricing reference is brief and non-redundant, though slightly optional.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves key operational details unstated, such as whether multiple historical benchmark prices are returned, what each record contains, and how this tool relates to sibling precious-metals tools. It is minimally usable but incomplete for confident correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds context that the tool covers gold and silver benchmark prices, but it does not explain parameter semantics beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 action ('获取'), the resource ('上海黄金交易所发布的黄金或白银基准价格'), and the source. It is specific enough to be distinguished from precious-metals siblings by the 'benchmark' and Shanghai Gold Exchange reference, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pm_spot_prices, pm_international_prices, or pm_basis. The phrase '国内贵金属定价的重要参考' hints at context but does not state when this tool should be preferred or when it should not be used.

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