获取加密货币历史价格

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does convey non-mutating retrieval and standardized output fields. However, it does not disclose the concrete return structure (e.g., OHLCV field names), ordering, timezone, or any API constraints, leaving meaningful behavioral details unspecified.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and action, with no wasted words. The output-behavior clause also earns its place given the lack of an output schema.

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 simple read-only fetcher with fully documented optional parameters, the description is usable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the vague 'standardized market fields' does not fully equip an agent to interpret the response without additional discovery.

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 documentation covers 100% of the three parameters with defaults and allowed values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond characterizing the output as standardized K-line data.

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 ('获取') and names a precise resource: OKX crypto historical K-line data. The historical-K-line scope clearly separates it from crypto sentiment, funding-rate, open-interest, and current spot price siblings.

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 explicitly states the context in which the tool applies: retrieving OKX cryptocurrency historical K-line data. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the historical scope gives a clear condition of use without requiring much inference.

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