资金费率规则

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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world, but the description goes beyond them by exposing a high-usage cost ('weight 高慎用') and the unparameterized global scope. It also clarifies that the output contains rules, not current values, which is a key operational distinction.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the exact endpoint purpose, the returned fields, the no-filter scope, a usage-cost warning, and a sibling alternative. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant prose.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description nonetheless tells the agent what it will receive (rules for all currencies: upper/lower rate limits and settlement intervals) and how it differs from the current-pair tool. The agent can invoke the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description still adds meaning by making clear that symbol-level filtering is intentionally absent, preventing an agent from looking for a symbol parameter that does not exist.

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 the exact verb and resource: '获取全市场资金费率规则' and spells out what it returns (费率上下限与结算间隔). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by noting that current single-pair funding values belong to market_mark_price, so the agent can tell tools apart without opining schemas.

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 states scope explicitly ('无 symbol 过滤') and warns the weight is high, so the caller should use it sparingly. It also gives a concrete alternative with a clear conditional: for a single trading pair's current funding rate, use market_mark_price.

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