加密货币走势图

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions generating an ASCII chart, but does not clarify whether it fetches live data, what the chart represents, whether it has limitations, or what the exact output shape is. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no wasted words. It communicates the core function efficiently, though it may be too sparse to be considered excellent given the absence of usage and behavioral context.

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 two-parameter drawing tool, the schema covers the inputs well and the description states the output format. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not mention data source, supported symbol scope beyond examples, or how this tool relates to sibling chart tools, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, with both parameters (bar and symbol) described with defaults and allowed formats. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 states a specific verb ('生成' - generate), a concrete resource ('加密货币走势图' - cryptocurrency trend chart), and the output format (ASCII). This makes the tool's primary function clear and distinguishes it from generic chart or data tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling draw_ascii_chart.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_ascii_chart, crypto_prices, or crypto_composite_diagnostic. The description provides no context, exclusions, or conditions, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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