platform_market_ticker【行情】查询标的实时行情 ticker。参数 symbol 为交易标的（如 BTCUSDT，可选，缺省返回全部）。（cost: free）
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "platform_market_ticker"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | 交易标的，如 BTCUSDT（可选） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds two useful facts: there is no cost, and omitting symbol returns all instruments. It says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or the return shape, which matters for a 'real-time' data 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?
Built from one short sentence plus parentheticals, and the resource/purpose leads. The 【行情】 tag and the trailing cost note are compact and useful rather than bloat.
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 with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers invocation, but it never says what a ticker contains (price, volume, change, timestamp), so an agent cannot predict the response shape without calling it.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's symbol note (example BTCUSDT) largely restates the schema, and only the default-to-all behavior adds meaning beyond it.
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 gives a specific verb (查询) plus resource (标的实时行情 ticker), so the agent knows this returns a live price snapshot for one or all instruments. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools platform_market_quote and platform_market_overview, which sound like they could return the same data.
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 states the calling convention (symbol optional, omitted means return everything) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over platform_market_quote, platform_market_overview, or platform_market_factors. Usage is only implied by the name, not explained.
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.