bitget_method_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the documentation contents (request params, response formats, examples, error handling) but does not state whether it is read-only, requires auth, or behaves on invalid input. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds meaningful information. No fluff or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description plus schema adequately cover purpose and output expectations. The lack of output schema is mitigated by enumerating included documentation types, though the relationship with sibling tools is not explicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description is already clear. The tool description adds only 'specific' context and does not provide further format, examples, or value guidance beyond the schema.

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 tool queries detailed usage information for specific API methods in the Bitget Exchange SDK. It distinguishes from siblings like gate_method_detail by naming Bitget and from bitget_methods by emphasizing 'specific' methods.

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 for specific methods but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus bitget_methods or other method_detail tools. No mention of prerequisites such as first listing methods or when not to use it.

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