get_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. '列出' indicates a read-only list operation, and the optional instrument_type filter is described. However, it does not disclose side effects, pagination, error behavior, or what happens when instrument_type is null.

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 minimal and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list with examples. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Adequate for a low-complexity list tool, especially with an output schema available. It lacks usage differentiation from sibling market-info tools and does not specify behavior when instrument_type is omitted, so it is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by explaining exchange with examples (binance/bybit/okx) and instrument_type as an optional linear/spot/inverse filter. It does not explain null behavior, but it provides substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 '列出交易所可用交易对' (list available trading pairs), which identifies a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_exchange_info or get_market_info, but the intent is 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 provides parameter guidance and example values but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over get_exchange_info or get_market_info, so usage context must be inferred entirely from the purpose.

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