get_klines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'REST 请求' (REST request) and does not mention safety, side effects, rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior. As a read-only get operation, this is a minor gap, but the description offers no explicit behavioral context beyond the trivial protocol detail.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence summarizing the purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every line serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, 1 required), an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage details. It provides parameter explanations and a default, but could add more context such as maximum limit or the exact format of the returned data, though the output schema likely covers the latter. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so effectively: symbol with an example, interval with a list of common values, and limit with a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types, though the interval list is not exhaustive (uses '等' for 'etc.').

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 tool retrieves historical K-line data (获取历史 K 线数据) with a specific verb and resource, and it explicitly mentions it is a REST request. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker (current price) and get_orderbook, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for historical candle data but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or alternative tools. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to call it, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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