subscribeRfqRfqs

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld, so the description does not need to re-cover mutation safety. It does add an authentication requirement, which is useful, but it does not explain the subscription lifecycle, event delivery format, reconnection behavior, or how the operation terminates. With no output schema, the behavioral burden falls on the description, and it only partially meets it.

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 sentence with no filler and the verb is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though the conciseness is partly a result of omitting substantive guidance, so it does not earn a 5.

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 subscription tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, an agent needs to know what events will be received, how the timeout/count parameters control completion, and what the result looks like. The description only provides the resource, the action, and an auth note, leaving the agent to guess the operational contract.

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 does not mention timeoutMs or messageCount at all. The parameter names and defaults give a weak hint about timeouts and message limits, but the description adds no meaning about units, precedence, or interaction between the two parameters, leaving important invocation semantics unspecified.

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 concrete action and resource: '订阅 RFQ 请求' (subscribe to RFQ requests). This is clearer than a bare name and distinguishes it from RFQ quote/trade subscriptions at a basic level. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as subscribeRfqQuotes or subscribeRfqTrades, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 only usage-related statement is '需要鉴权' (requires authentication), which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to use this tool. There is no mention of alternatives, scenarios, or conditions that would select this subscription over related RFQ tools such as getRfqs, getRfqsRealtime, or subscribeRfqTrades.

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