queryBrokerEarning

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: rate limit of 10 req/s, default 7-day window, data range constraints, mandatory broker account type, and documented error codes. It does not describe cursor pagination behavior or return structure, but it goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear sections for rate limit, rules, and error codes. The error-code table is somewhat long but each row contributes useful information. Structurally it is easy to scan and parse.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, defaults, time constraints, rate limiting, and errors, so an agent could successfully call the tool with no parameters. However, with six parameters, no output schema, and no descriptions for uid, bizType, or cursor pagination mechanics, some important context is missing for more targeted queries.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains begin/end pairing and default range, limit bounds through an error code, and cursor invalidity through an error code. However, the semantics of uid and bizType are not explained, and cursor usage is not described beyond the error case.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action and resource: using the exchange broker master account to query earnings and rebate information. It is distinguishable from broker-related siblings such as queryBrokerAccountInfo and queryBrokerCap, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against them.

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?

Provides clear practical guidance: exchange broker master account required, begin and end must be used together or omitted, latest 7 days returned by default, and data supports only up to past 1 month until T-1. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, but the usage context is concrete and actionable.

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