get_market_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the data scope ('精度、最小数量等' – precision, minimum quantity, etc.), giving some hint of the return content. It doesn't specify if data is current, if there are rate limits, or if any other behavior like caching applies. For a simple market info tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence followed by a clear Args section with a parameter explanation and example. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately provides the necessary context for the parameter, with no wasted 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description mentions the type of data returned (precision, minimum quantity, etc.), which partially covers return value expectations. The tool is relatively simple with one parameter, and the description gives enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it could benefit from listing what '等' includes to be fully complete. Given the tool's complexity, this is strong.

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 input schema only declares the parameter 'symbol' as a string with no description. The description provides crucial meaning by explaining its format with an example (BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE). Given the schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by defining the expected value, earning higher score.

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 states a clear purpose: '获取指定交易对的市场详情' (get market details for a specific trading pair), and specifies the resource (trading pair). The example symbol clarifies the input format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_ticker or get_exchange_info, which it might overlap with.

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 (when you need market details for a specific symbol) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention when to choose get_exchange_info or get_ticker instead. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, making the selection less precise.

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