kline_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies that price_type is required and date format is YYYY-MM-DD, which are helpful constraints. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe any rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. Being a data retrieval tool, the read-only nature is expected but not explicitly stated.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then adding essential parameter hints. Every sentence adds value: identification, data types, parameter requirements. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, all with enums or format constraints) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the key inputs and purpose. It does not address time zone or data range, but these are secondary and often inferable. For an agent, this is largely sufficient to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is only 25% (only symbol has a description). The tool's description adds the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and clarifies that price_type is required (though it is already listed as required in the schema). It does not elaborate on interval or symbol beyond the schema's enum lists. Overall, it provides moderate additional value for one parameter but does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies it as a Kline API for GMO Coin FX and lists the types of data retrieved (candlestick, OHLC, price history, etc.). The verb '取得' (retrieve) is specific, and the resource ('Kline API') and domain (FX) are explicit. The sibling tools are all order/position management, so this tool's data retrieval purpose is well-distinguished.

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 price data retrieval, and the sibling tools (all order-related) provide implicit contrast. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for placing orders) or provide alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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