get_block_trade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by elaborating what each type returns (e.g., premium rate, buyer/seller business departments), but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and then concisely unpacks each type. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the three modes and date constraints. It could mention default behavior when dates are omitted, but overall it is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description goes beyond by providing richer semantics for the enum values, such as specifying that detail includes premium rates and business departments. It also confirms the date applicability for specific types.

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 clearly states it retrieves block trade data and distinguishes three query modes via the type parameter. The verb '获取' (get) is specific, and the resource is unambiguous, differentiating it from sibling tools that cover other financial data.

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 explains that type determines the mode of data returned and notes that date parameters apply only to detail and daily_stat types. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a data retrieval tool.

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