贵金属综合诊断

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool is a composite and returns multiple data categories in one call, which is useful. But it does not describe output shape, data freshness, latency, or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the composite nature and lists concrete sub-data. The trailing '等综合诊断数据' is slightly vague filler, but overall there is no meaningful redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and 100% schema coverage, invocation is clear: 'metal' defaults to gold and supports silver. No output schema exists, and while the category list partially compensates, the description lacks details about return structure, time ranges, or how the composite data is organized.

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?

The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema fully documents the only parameter 'metal' with supported values (gold, silver) and a default. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 uses a specific verb '获取' (fetch) against a named resource: 贵金属综合诊断数据, and enumerates concrete data categories (price trends, ETF holdings, COMEX inventory, futures-spot basis). The '复合技能' prefix signals aggregation, which helps distinguish it from individual pm_* tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

'一键获取' implies the tool is for when a broad precious-metals diagnostic snapshot is needed, and '复合技能' suggests a composite alternative to individual data tools like pm_spot_prices or pm_basis. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer usage context from sibling names.

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