K 线历史

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the return content (OHLCV and trade info) and time-range support, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or any other parser-specific behavior. Acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence in Chinese that front-loads the main operation ('获取指定交易器与周期的 K 线') and adds useful detail (OHLCV, volume, time range). Every part contributes value; there is no haffle.

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 is a simple read-only data retrieval operation, and annotations already cover its read-only nature. The description states the object, key parameters, and time-range filtering; with an output schema present, it does not need to explain return structure. Minor absence of limit/> pagination and clear sibling distinction leaves it 1 point short of complete.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description carries most param burden. It clarifies that `symbol` means trading pair and `interval` means period, and that `startTime`/`endTime` form a range filter. However, `limit` is never mentioned, and the schema has no per-parameter descriptions, so some parameter semantics still rely on type names/defaults.

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 verb '获取' and the resource 'K线' with specific scope (trading pair and cycle) and content (OHLCV plus volume/trade info). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `market_continuous_klines`, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `market_continuous_klines` or `market_price`. It only mentions an available feature (time-range filtering), without stating prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions.

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