get_realtime_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns latest price, volume, change, and timestamp, which is helpful. However, it does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or any restrictions on symbol types beyond examples.

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 long, front-loading the purpose and then detailing return fields and examples. Every sentence provides value; no redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields (price, volume, change, timestamp). For a real-time data tool with moderate complexity, this covers essential information. However, it could mention pagination or batching limits for multiple symbols.

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 (codes, market_type) fully described. The description adds example codes but does not significantly enhance the schema's meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('Get real-time trade data') and clearly identifies the resources (stocks, crypto, forex) and return fields (price, volume, change, timestamp). It provides example codes that help distinguish this from sibling tools like get_company_overview or get_kline, which focus on different data types.

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 real-time quotes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_kline (for historical data) or get_market_depth (for order book). No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it is provided.

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