Retrieve broker import history, showing file names, brokers, import times, and row counts (imported, skipped, total). Limit results to recent entries.
查看交割单导入历史（文件、券商、导入时间、成功/跳过行数）。
Args:
limit: 返回最近 N 次导入记录（默认 20，最大 200）
Returns:
{imports: [{id, broker, file_name, imported_rows, skipped_rows,
total_rows, first_date, last_date, created_at}...]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via '查看' and helpfully discloses the return record shape, but says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior beyond the limit cap, or whether the history is bounded/retained. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
Front-loads the purpose, then Args, then Returns, with no filler. The Returns block is somewhat verbose but earns its place since no output schema exists to convey the field list.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the sole parameter's semantics, and the return structure, which is more than the structured fields provide. Only auth/retention context is missing, a minor 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that limit returns the most recent N records, with default 20 and maximum 200. That meaning and its bounds are absent from the schema and are fully supplied here.
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?
States a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (交割单导入历史/import history) and enumerates the fields surfaced (file, broker, import time, success/skipped rows). An agent can distinguish this read-history tool from the write-side broker_import_statement, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. The read-only intent is implied by '查看', but the agent gets no signal about when this is preferable to broker_import_statement or broker_list_trades, and no prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.