最优买卖报价

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared safe, the description adds real behavioral value by noting that omitting symbol changes the scope to the entire market and increases API weight. This is beyond both the schema and annotations and helps the agent avoid an expensive accidental call.

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?

Two parenthetical-clauses, each crucial: no inherited wasted. The core return value is front-loaded, the weight caveat at the end is essential. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity light market data tool with no output schema, the description fully enough: what it returns, that it is lighter than the orderbook, and the scope/weight implication of the default. The agent can select and call it confidently without missing unknown consequences.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensatesru: 'symbol' semantics by explaining that omitting symbol returns the whole market, and 'weight high, use with caution'. The only param is self-evidently a market ticker symbol, so absentity of format examples is a meaning gap but not a serious one.

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 in Chinese that this retrieves the best bid/ask price and quantity, which is a specific verb + resource. It also explicitly distinguishes it from the order book by calling it lighter, making it easy to tell apart from market_orderbook and other market data tools.

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 gives clear selection context: use it when you need top-of-book prices, and it contrasts with the full order book. It also warns that omitting symbol returns the whole market with a high weight, so an agent knows when to be cautious. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool, but the intended contrast to the order book is evident.

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