spot_golden_benchmark_sge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits or data update frequency. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise: a short descriptive line, a source URL, and a return-type docstring. It is front-loaded and to the point. The slight redundancy with the title annotation prevents a 5, but it remains efficient.

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 zero-parameter, read-only data retrieval tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the data source (URL), the resource (Shanghai Gold benchmark price historical data), and the return format (pandas.DataFrame). The annotations cover safety. No output schema exists, but the return type is disclosed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema confirms that no inputs are required.

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: Shanghai Gold Exchange benchmark price historical data. It is distinct from the sibling tool spot_silver_benchmark_sge, which covers silver, and the specific wording '上海金基准价-历史数据' makes the purpose explicit. However, it lacks a verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve', instead using a noun phrase, so it is not a full 5.

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 like spot_hist_sge or spot_quotations_sge. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. This is a case of simply no guidance provided.

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