subscribeRfqTrades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate read-only safety. It does add an authentication requirement, which is useful context, but it omits important behavioral traits of a subscription tool: whether it streams repeatedly, waits for a single message, requires an active WebSocket connection, or how timeoutMs/messageCount control execution.

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 with the action, and there is no filler text. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, providing only a short clause with no structure for behavior, parameters, or return semantics.

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 no output schema, the description is not complete enough: it does not explain what data is delivered, how the subscription terminates, what the two parameters do, or how this differs from subscribeRfqPublicTrades. The auth note and read-only annotation provide only minimal 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 provides no meaning for 'timeoutMs' or 'messageCount'. It does not compensate for the schema gap at all, leaving the agent to guess how these parameters affect the subscription behavior.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('订阅 RFQ 成交' = subscribe to RFQ trades) and clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate this from the similar sibling tool 'subscribeRfqPublicTrades', which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many subscription siblings such as subscribeRfqQuotes, subscribeRfqRfqs, or subscribeRfqPublicTrades. The '需要鉴权' note is a prerequisite, not a usage condition or alternative-routing hint.

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