query_fx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the output method ('written to file_path as CSV'), mentions default behavior for currency, and notes error behavior for cross ('不可达时明确报错'). It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting files, but it is reasonably transparent for a query tool.

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 long but well-structured, using a kind-by-kind breakdown that makes the information digestible. It avoids redundant phrasing and each sentence adds value (examples, notes, constraints). It could be slightly more compact, but the current length is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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 complexity (multiple kinds with distinct parameter requirements) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational details: parameter constraints, defaults, examples, and error behavior. It does not mention broader context like rate limits or authentication, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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% for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant extra value by explaining each kind in relation to parameters (e.g., 'currency 过滤币种', 'start_date/end_date required for bochina'), providing examples, and clarifying defaults. This exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('FX rates'), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly enumerating the kinds of FX data (mid, bochina, usdcnh, cross). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides detailed guidance on when to use each kind (e.g., 'kind=bochina' for Chinese bank rates, 'kind=cross' for cross pairs) and includes practical notes like '港币 not 港元' and '默认 all 25'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to invoke this tool.

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