subscribePriceLimit

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is presumably a safe, passive subscription. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether this subscribes over WebSocket, whether it replaces an existing subscription, what triggers a push, or whether the subscription is persistent. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds no meaningful transparency beyond them.

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 a single short phrase, so it is concise, but it is concise to the point of under-specification. There is no front-loaded useful information beyond a vague verb-noun phrase; the brevity does not earn its place because it does not convey enough meaning to be considered well-structured.

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 4-parameter subscription tool with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, this description is incomplete. The agent is left without information about what 'price limit' means, whether the push is one-time or continuous, how timeoutMs and messageCount interact, and how this subscription behaves over time. The tool is simple in surface area, but the description does not provide enough operational context.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema itself provides types and defaults, but the semantics of 'symbol', 'category', 'timeoutMs', and 'messageCount' in the context of a price limit push are not explained. With zero coverage and no descriptive help, the description fails its obligation to compensate.

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 '订阅价格限制推送' (Subscribe to price limit push) names only the resource and operation in a general way, without stating what the subscription does with the price limit, what data is pushed, or how it differs from siblings like subscribeSystemStatus or subscribeTickers. It is not a tautology of the tool name, but it is extremely vague and fails to establish a clear, specific purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as subscribeTickers, subscribeOrderbook, or getPriceLimit. The sibling list contains several subscription tools, and nothing here indicates the intended use case, prerequisites, or conditions under which a price limit push subscription is appropriate.

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