spot_prices

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context about time range and single-symbol scope, but it is silent on how the `limit` parameter interacts with the claim of returning '全部历史数据'. This creates ambiguity about whether a default call returns all data or only 20 rows, which is a significant behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core resource, scope, and historical range efficiently, though its brevity does contribute to the missing behavioral details.

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?

Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to document return values, the description still leaves critical invocation details unresolved: what `limit` does relative to the 'all history' claim, what formats `symbol` accepts, and which sibling tools provide supporting data such as symbol lists. The tool is simple, but the missing parameter semantics and limit ambiguity make it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It helps clarify that `symbol` refers to a commodity variety, but it gives no guidance on valid symbol values, no mention of `limit` behavior, and no explanation of the default of 20. An agent cannot confidently set these parameters from the description alone.

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 identifies the resource (大宗商品现货行情 from 99qh) and the action (returns historical price data for a single variety from 2012 to now). It is specific enough to separate itself from futures-focused tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like pm_spot_prices or market_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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is for commodity spot history, but it never contrasts with alternatives such as futures_prices, spot_symbols, or pm_spot_prices, leaving the agent to infer the correct context.

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