获取上海金交所现货价格

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 it fetches historical price data and technical indicators, which largely restates the tool name and title. It does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, data granularity, or any limitations, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 that front-loads the main function (getting data) and includes key scope details (exchange and varieties). It is efficient, though it could benefit from a brief mention of return contents or alternatives to improve structure.

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 only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no required fields, the description is minimally sufficient for calling the tool. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned data looks like or how technical indicators are presented, leaving a gap for an agent relying solely on the description.

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 coverage is 100%, with both limit and symbol having clear descriptions including default values and supported symbol codes. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool fetches historical spot price data from the Shanghai Gold Exchange, covering gold and silver varieties with price trends and technical indicators. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pm_international_prices (international prices) and spot_prices by naming a specific exchange and scope.

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 usage for Shanghai Gold Exchange spot prices but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that pm_international_prices should be used for international prices or that spot_prices might be an alternative, leaving the agent to infer from the exchange name.

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