获取加密货币分析报告

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says a report is fetched; it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the report contains, whether the data is real-time or delayed, or whether there are any access constraints. The behavior of 'recommended use' is also left unexplained.

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 statement is brief and front-loads the core function with the verb and resource early in the sentence. The closing '推荐使用' is vague filler that does not add actionable information, but the overall length is appropriate and free of redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and many crypto-related sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what kind of analysis the report contains, how it differs from other diagnostics, or why an agent should select this tool. The low complexity and single parameter reduce the burden somewhat, but the lack of differentiation and return-value context leaves a notable gap.

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 100% for the single symbol parameter, which already documents the format and default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage nuance, but since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb '获取' and the resource '币安对加密货币的AI分析报告', which identifies a specific data product. It is distinguishable from sibling crypto data tools like crypto_prices or crypto_funding_rate because it focuses on an AI-generated analysis report, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 phrase '推荐使用' vaguely suggests the tool is recommended, but it gives no concrete guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as crypto_composite_diagnostic or crypto_sentiment_metrics. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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