pm_international_pricesRetrieve real-time international precious metals prices for London gold, London silver, COMEX gold, and COMEX silver using symbol codes to support market analysis.
获取国际贵金属实时价格，包括伦敦金、伦敦银、COMEX黄金、COMEX白银等
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | 品种代码，支持: XAU(伦敦金), XAG(伦敦银), GC(COMEX黄金), SI(COMEX白银) | XAU |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the real-time nature and the international scope of the data, but it does not mention factors such as data source, update frequency, potential delays, units/currency, or the response format. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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 or redundant explanatory sections. The core scope and examples are positioned immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks details about what the returned price data looks like and how it relates to similar price tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 schema already documents the single 'symbol' parameter with 100% coverage, including all supported values and a default. The description merely repeats examples already present in the schema and adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond that.
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 a specific action ('获取'/'get') and a specific resource ('国际贵金属实时价格'), and enumerates the covered instruments (伦敦金、伦敦银、COMEX黄金、COMEX白银). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as pm_spot_prices or spot_prices.
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 when to use the tool: when real-time international precious metals prices are needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tool to prefer, despite the presence of several potentially overlapping price tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.