加密货币综合诊断

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns combined diagnostic data, but it does not disclose aggregation behavior, potential latency from multiple underlying sources, failure modes, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a meaningful gap for a composite tool.

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 efficient sentence with the key components front-loaded: one-click, cryptocurrency, technicals, sentiment, and AI report. Every part contributes meaning, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Despite having only one simple parameter, this is a composite diagnostic tool that likely returns rich and varied output. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned diagnostic data contains, how it is structured, or how it differs from individual crypto metric tools. The description is too thin for an agent to know what to expect.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'symbol' parameter and a default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Description states a clear verb and resource: '一键获取' comprehensive diagnostic data covering technicals, sentiment, and AI reports. It conveys the tool's aggregating nature but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like crypto_prices, crypto_sentiment_metrics, or composite_stock_diagnostic.

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 implies usage when a broad crypto diagnosis is desired, as opposed to a single metric. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative sibling tools such as binance_ai_report or crypto_sentiment_metrics.

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