fx_quote_baidu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the requirement to copy and pass an acs-token from the target website, the symbol choices (人民币/美元), and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent practical invocation details.

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 raw docstring with a title, URL, parameter annotations, and return type. It is reasonably concise but not front-loaded with a plain-language summary. The formatting mixes Chinese and English, and some lines (like the URL) are more noise than signal. It is acceptable but not well-structured for quick agent parsing.

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?

Without an output schema, the description only partially covers return values by stating 'pandas.DataFrame' but does not describe the columns or the nature of the rankings. It also does not explain how to obtain the acs-token or whether the token is strictly required. Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, it is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'symbol' as a choice of {'人民币', '美元'} and 'token' as the acs-token copied from the target site. However, the meaning of 'symbol' (e.g., base or quote currency) is ambiguous, and the token requirement is stated but not elaborated. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 tool's domain: '百度股市通-外汇-行情榜单' (Baidu Stock Market - Foreign Exchange - Market Rankings) along with a specific URL. The tool name 'fx_quote_baidu' further reinforces that it fetches quotes. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling forex tools like forex_spot_em or fx_spot_quote, so it is clear but not perfectly distinguished.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios, and the URL is the only hint of its source. Given the large number of similar forex tools among siblings, the absence of usage guidance leaves the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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