生成走势字符图

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only reveals that the chart is '简单的' (simple) and trend-oriented. Worse, the claim that output is generated 根据提供的价格列表 misdescribes behavior, since the schema accepts market+symbol, implying the tool fetches data itself. Nothing is said about data sourcing, default time range, or failure modes.

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?

One short 24-character sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is easy to scan and every word carries intent; the only blemish is the misleading '价格列表' phrase, which is a content accuracy problem rather than a structural one.

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 no annotations, the description must do more than it does. It leaves unresolved whether the tool fetches data via symbol/market or expects a price list, gives no sense of the chart's timeframe (there is no date parameter), and doesn't relate itself to draw_crypto_chart. For a charting tool this is noticeably thin.

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%, so the schema already fully documents market (with default and allowed values) and symbol, which normally justifies a baseline of 3. However, the description actively introduces a phantom '价格列表' (price list) parameter that doesn't exist in the schema, which can mislead an agent into looking for a non-existent argument.

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 states a specific action — 根据提供的价格列表生成一个简单的 ASCII 走势图 (generate a simple ASCII trend chart) — which is more than a tautology of the title. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling draw_crypto_chart, and it references a '价格列表' (price list) input that doesn't exist in the schema, muddying what the tool actually consumes.

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?

No guidance is given. The phrase 用于直观展示趋势 only implies a generic visualization use case and provides no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no pointer to when to prefer this over draw_crypto_chart or text-based data tools like stock_quote or individual_hist.

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