futures_agg_trades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states basic functionality without mentioning ordering, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The description does not clarify what 'aggregated by time' means (e.g., per second, per minute) or how records are sorted.

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 sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is not verbose, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., by adding a note on ordering). Still, it is well-front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format or behavior (e.g., how aggregation works, whether data is sorted by time). Given the complexity of aggregated trade data, more detail would be needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., symbol, limit, fromId, startTime, endTime). The tool's name and description imply aggregation, but this is not linked to specific parameters.

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 retrieves aggregated futures trade records, with an explicit note about time-based aggregation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'futures_trades' (individual trades) and 'futures_klines' (candlestick data). The verb '获取' (get) and resource '聚合成交数据' (aggregated trade data) are specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool is for fetching time-aggregated trade data, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., futures_trades for individual trades or futures_klines for OHLCV). No conditions or exclusions are stated.

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