spot_quotations_sge

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat these. It adds the 'real-time' nature and source URLs, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as data freshness caveats, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is not contradictory to 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 a raw documentation string with URLs and a parameter doc. While it is not overly verbose, the placement of URLs before the parameter documentation creates a slightly awkward flow. It is acceptable but not well-structured for quick consumption.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential aspects: valid symbols, return type, and data source. However, since there is no output schema, it does not describe the specific columns or fields returned, which would be useful for an agent to interpret the DataFrame. It is minimally complete but leaves room for improvement.

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?

Although the input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description provides a comprehensive list of valid symbol values and points to a sibling function for the full symbol table. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, giving the agent enough information to select a valid parameter.

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 as providing Shanghai Gold Exchange real-time market data, and the name 'spot_quotations_sge' distinguishes it from siblings like historical or benchmark tools. However, it is expressed as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-based action, which slightly reduces 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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions that one can get the symbol table via another function, which is more about parameter selection than tool selection. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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