获取贵金属期现基差

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says '获取数据' (fetch data) and gives a purpose, but does not describe output structure, data granularity, time range, or any operational constraints. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and includes a brief purpose clause. No unnecessary words, repetition, or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it does and why it's used, but omits details about the return format, whether it is current or historical, and any limitations. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema fully documents the single 'metal' parameter, including default and allowed values, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies when the schema is already descriptive.

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 states the verb '获取' (fetch) and the resource '贵金属期货与现货价格的基差数据' (precious metals futures-spot basis data), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like pm_spot_prices and futures_basis. The additional purpose clause ('判断市场预期和套利机会') further clarifies its intended use.

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 provides a clear use case (market expectations and arbitrage opportunities) implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusionary guidance or a direct comparison with sibling tools, so it falls just short of full marks.

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