交易规则

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses default all-market behavior, large payload risk, andespecific fields returned. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but the operation is a simple read-only info lookup and annotations already cover safety.

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 concise clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and fields, followed by a caution. Every sentence earns its place and there is no indentation or unrelated text.

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 read-only exchange-information tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content and the all-market cas. It does not mention exact output container/format, but the named fields provide enough.

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 0 %, so the description must define symbol semantics. The description implies that symbol filters to a trading pair by saying 'default returns all market', but it never explicitly states the symbol format/value and does not explain what the parameter represents in relation to the output. It compensates partially but not fully for the empty 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 names a specific verb+resource: obtain trading-pair precision specifications, and enumerates the returned fields (price/qty decimals, tickSize, stepSize, minnotional). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling market book/ticker/kline 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?

It tells the agent that omitting symbol returns he entire market and warns that the payload is large and should be used carefully, which implies passing a symbol to limit scope. It could be stronger with an explicit 'use this when you need precision/exchange rules rather than market data or trading operations', but the context is clear.

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