spot_hist_sge

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already state. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description only repeats that data is historical and returns a DataFrame, with no mention of data ranges, pagination, or response structure.

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 structured as a compact docstring with a URL, parameter list, and return type. The symbol list is necessary and not padded, though the URL line could be considered redundant with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description fails to explain what fields the historical data contains, the date range covered, or whether it returns full history. For a data-returning tool, this is a significant gap.

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, but the description lists 17 valid symbol values and directs users to a helper function for the full symbol table. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple default and covers parameter usage well.

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 indicates this tool retrieves historical data for Shanghai Gold Exchange spot products, and provides the source URL and a list of supported symbols. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like spot_quotations_sge, instead relying on the word 'history' in the name and description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only related reference is to ak.spot_symbol_table_sge() for obtaining valid symbols, which addresses parameter selection, not tool selection or situational usage.

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