subscribeRfqPublicTrades

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'subscribe' without detailing behavioral traits such as streaming behavior, data format, connection requirements, or side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient information.

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 short and to the point, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified for a subscription tool.

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 lack of output schema and the presence of many sibling subscription tools, the description fails to provide enough context about what data is returned, how the subscription works, or how to handle the stream. It is incomplete.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'messageCount' and 'timeoutMs'. The agent must rely on parameter names, which may not convey semantics clearly (e.g., default values and minimums are in schema but not explained).

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 RFQ 公开成交' clearly states the tool subscribes to RFQ public trades. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'subscribeRfqTrades' or 'subscribePublicTrade', leaving ambiguity about the exact scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'subscribeRfqTrades' or 'subscribePublicTrade'. There is no explicit context or exclusions.

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