getTokenProduct

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful operational behavior beyond that: a concrete rate limit of 20 req/s (IP) and the fact that no authentication is required. It also clarifies the data scope by listing user's FlexibleSaving balance, quota, and APR, though it does not describe return format or edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed only by two short, useful operational notes about rate limiting and authentication. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a read-only, one-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it names the key output fields, the single applicable coin, the rate limit, and the authentication requirement. The phrase 'other product information' is vague and there is no output schema to fill in the gap, so slightly more detail about the full response shape would improve completeness.

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 carries most of the semantic burden. It reinforces that the product is BYUSDT, which maps directly to the single enum value in the schema, but it does not explicitly document the 'coin' parameter or explain why this parameter exists. The enum and required flag do most of the parameter-level work.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Query BYUSDT Token product details.' It also enumerates the returned information (FlexibleSaving balance, remaining quota, APR), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getTokenPosition, getTokenOrderList, and getTokenDailyYield.

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 when to use the tool: when BYUSDT Token product details including user balance, quota, and APR are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, contrast with getTokenPosition or getTokenOrderList, or state when not to use it, so selection guidance is left mostly to inference.

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