platform_get_agent【策略】获取单个已发布的公开 AI 助理（策略）详情。参数 agentId 为策略 ID。（cost: free）
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"agentId": "<agentId>"
},
"name": "platform_get_agent"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | 策略 / AI 助理 ID（必填） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agentId / descriptionPrevious value: -"策略 / Agent ID（必填）"New value: +"策略 / AI 助理 ID（必填）"Input schema / properties / agentId / descriptionPrevious value: -"策略 / AI 助理 ID（必填）"New value: +"策略 / Agent ID（必填）"Input schema / properties / agentId / descriptionPrevious value: -"策略 / Agent ID（必填）"New value: +"策略 / AI 助理 ID（必填）"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context: only *published and public* strategies are retrievable (implying unpublished/private IDs will fail) and that the call is free, which matters for agents that meter quota across the many platform_* tools.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste: resource category tag first, then the core action, then the parameter note, then cost. Front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description gives no sense of what 'details' includes (config, performance, positions?), nor how it relates to platform_strategy_performance or platform_my_strategies. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the payload.
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 required agentId, so the schema already carries the full parameter burden. The description only restates that agentId is the strategy ID, adding no new syntax, format, or sourcing guidance; baseline 3 applies.
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 (获取 / get) and a well-scoped resource: a single *published, public* AI assistant (strategy). The 'single' framing implicitly contrasts with platform_list_agents, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for fetching one known strategy by ID while platform_list_agents is for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, and no guidance on what happens if the ID refers to a private or unpublished strategy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.