get_ticker

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the call is a REST request and non-cached, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature (though implied by 'get'), potential rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid symbols. For a simple GET, this is a moderate gap, but not severe.

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: one sentence stating the core purpose and a separate 'Args' section for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes return values), the description is nearly complete. It covers the parameter semantics and the core behavior. The only missing element is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, which is a minor gap. For a simple ticker getter, the description suffices for correct invocation.

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 schema provides no description for the 'symbol' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the parameter's purpose ('交易对' – trading pair) and gives a concrete example ('BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE'), which clarifies the expected format. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare type 'string', making it highly effective.

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's function: '获取指定交易对的最新行情' (get the latest quotes for a specified trading pair). It identifies the verb (get), resource (ticker/market data), and adds a behavioral note about being a REST request and non-cached. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_mark_price or get_index_price, which target different data types, even though no explicit comparison is made.

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: call it when you need the latest ticker for a specific symbol. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_mark_price or get_index_price. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and sibling list.

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