Retrieve real-time web results for trade research. Set API keys to get actual data; without them, receive a search plan instead.
联网检索。设置 TAVILY_API_KEY 或 SERPER_API_KEY 后返回真实结果；否则返回检索计划。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| top_k | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that real results are returned only when TAVILY_API_KEY or SERPER_API_KEY is set, otherwise a search plan is returned. However, it omits other behavioral details such as output format or error conditions.
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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the key conditional behavior stated efficiently. No filler or redundant content.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most critical non-obvious behavior but leaves out parameter details and usage context relative to sibling tools. It is serviceable but incomplete.
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%, and the description does not explain the query or top_k parameters. While 'query' may be inferred from the tool's name, top_k's meaning and behavior are left undocumented.
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 states the verb '检索' (search) and the resource '联网' (web), making the tool's purpose clear as a generic web search tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools, but the name and verb provide sufficient clarity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like research_company or scan_market. The only conditional mentioned concerns API keys, not tool selection, leaving usage context to be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.