get_exchange_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state what is returned (configured exchanges and their connection status), and '获取' implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether this is safe/read-only, whether connection status is live or cached, or whether any network calls are made.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the exact resource and the specific aspects returned in under 15 words.

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 zero-parameter info tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It identifies what the tool returns and the scope (configured exchanges and connection status), and no additional invocation details are needed.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (empty object), so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. Baseline 4 applies because no parameters exist.

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 uses a specific verb (获取) and names a clear resource: configured exchanges and their connection status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance, get_symbols, and get_market_info, since it focuses on exchange connectivity rather than balances, instrument metadata, or market 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?

The intended use is implied by the resource described, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_symbols or get_market_info. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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