Retrieve the last 24 hours of D1Jiema history; set confirm_rate_limit=true because the API permits one call per minute.
Read the last 24 hours of D1Jiema history. The API allows at most one call per minute; set confirm_rate_limit=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm_rate_limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key operational trait: a one-call-per-minute rate limit and the need to set confirm_rate_limit=true. It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens if the flag is left false.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope, with the rate-limit constraint and required flag immediately following. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the single-parameter read tool's main hazard (rate limiting) is covered. Only auth behavior and the failure mode of the confirm flag are left implicit.
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 0% and the boolean has no description, so the description must compensate; it does explain the purpose of confirm_rate_limit by tying it to the rate limit. It stops short of saying what value triggers failure, but the essential semantics are conveyed.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) plus resource (D1Jiema history) and scope (last 24 hours). It is clearly distinct from the settings/balance/phone/SMS siblings, though it does not name a sibling or contrast itself with one.
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?
Conveys implied usage (fetch recent history) and notes the one-call-per-minute constraint, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives such as d1jiema_balance or the SMS retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.