连续合约 K 线

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the main safety and completeness expectations. The description adds no further behavioral detail about paging, limits, returned data shape, or differences across contract types, so it is adequate but not enriching.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and scope.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool in edge cases such as choosing between contract types or understanding limit behavior.

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%, so the description was expected to carry parameter meaning. It explains none of pair, limit, interval, or contractType beyond the overall concept of K线. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names and schema enums.

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 a specific verb ('获取') and a specific resource ('连续合约…的K线'), with examples (季度/永续) that help disambiguate it from the more generic sibling market_klines. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when continuous-contract candlestick data is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it point to market_klines or another alternative.

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