save_asset_historyCreate or update asset change records using an upsert operation. Add a new entry or modify an existing one by ID, capturing account, time, balance after change, change amount, and description.
新增或更新资产变动记录（POST /assetHistory/addOrUpdateAssetHistory，upsert：带主键为更新）。entity 字段：assetHistoryId 主键；assetId 账户；time 时间；currentNum 变动后余额；changeNum 变动额；changeContent 变动说明
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes | 资产变动记录对象 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the upsert semantics (带主键为更新) and mutating nature via 新增或更新, but does not mention auth requirements, idempotency details, error cases, or response behavior. The core write behavior is transparent, but additional context is limited.
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?
One dense sentence with endpoint and field list; every part carries information. The field definitions are packed compactly, though the lack of natural-language formatting slightly reduces scannability.
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 an upsert tool with one nested object and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and key fields. However, it omits details like whether the field names are camelCase or Chinese semantic keys, required vs optional subfields, and any constraints on values. Given the open additionalProperties schema, the description could be more complete for error-free invocation.
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 description coverage is 100% with a single entity object, and the description adds meaning by listing the meaningful fields inside entity: assetHistoryId primary key, assetId account, time, currentNum balance after change, changeNum change amount, changeContent description. This goes beyond the generic '资产变动记录对象' in the schema and compensates for the schema's additionalProperties being open.
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?
Description clearly states the operation (新增或更新, i.e., create-or-update upsert) and the exact endpoint /assetHistory/addOrUpdateAssetHistory. It further distinguishes update behavior by presence of primary key, so an agent knows what the tool does at a glance.
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?
It explains when update vs insert occurs via the primary key presence, and identifies the resource. It does not explicitly say when to prefer save_asset_history over delete_asset_history or save_asset, but for a single-entity upsert tool this is reasonably clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.