未平仓量

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

The annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the result is 'current' and scoped to a pair. It does not mention freshness, rate limits, or behavior on invalid symbol, but for a read-only snapshot that gap is acceptable.

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?

One single sentence with no redundant words or filler. The important resource and scope are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The only remaining gap is the exact symbol format and possibly supported contract type, but those are minor for a simple 'get by symbol' tool.

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 supplies a bare 'symbol' string with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description clarifies that symbol means '交易对', but it does not define the expected format, casing, or exchange convention, so the parameter semantics is only partially compensated.

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 and object: it '获取' the '当前未平仓量' for a given trading pair. This clearly distinguishes the resource from market_price, market_funding_rate, and other sibling tools, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself.

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?

Description does not explicitly provide when to use or when not to use this tool. The intended usage is inferred because the resource is open interest; however, with 50+ sibling tools in the market domain, no explicit guidance is given for selecting this one over a more general market tool.

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