标记价

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context around default behavior (omitting symbol returns full market) and the high weight cost, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 short and well-structured: the main resource is stated first, the preferred use case is next, and a caution about default behavior closes it. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 a single optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation-relevant details. It lacks an explicit symbol format example, but the caution about missing symbol and the funding-rate fields named make it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 only defines an optional string symbol with no description, so the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It explains that symbol targets a single trading pair and that omitting it means full-market data, which adds real meaning; however, it does not specify the expected symbol format.

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 a specific verb and resource: it fetches mark price, index price, and funding rate information. It also differentiates itself by calling out the single-trading-pair funding rate values use case, which helps an agent distinguish it from related market 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 usage context: use this tool first when querying a single trading pair's funding rate values, and warns that omitting symbol returns the whole market with high weight. It does not explicitly name a specific sibling alternative, but the '首选本工具' guidance makes the intended use case clear.

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