qhkc_tool_foreign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: the dataset is real-time-refreshed and historical periods cannot be queried, plus the exact column shape (name, base_time, base_price, latest_price, rate) via the sample table.

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 purpose line and the real-time-only caveat are front-loaded and the param/return tags are compact. The multi-row sample data table is informative about output shape but consumes most of the description's length, diluting the signal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so through the :rtype and a representative sample table. Combined with the real-time-only note and the defaulted url parameter, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the url parameter's intended use is left unstated.

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 0% and the single parameter is only restated as ':param url: str 网址', which adds no meaning beyond the property name and type already in the schema. The description never explains that the default URL targets the toolbox endpoint or whether the parameter should normally be overridden.

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 first line names the resource precisely (外盘比价 / foreign-market price comparison) and the source tool (奇货可查), so an agent can distinguish it from generic futures/forex siblings. The verb is implicit (it is a data-retrieval tool) rather than an explicit action, and it does not name its nearest siblings such as futures_foreign_commodity_realtime.

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?

'实时更新数据，暂不能查询历史数据' tells the agent this is a real-time-only source with no historical query, which is a useful usage constraint. However, it names no alternative tool for historical foreign quotes, so the when-not guidance is only partial and no positive when-to-use trigger is given.

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