市场快照

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool aggregates many analysis dimensions in one call, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose how `limit` and `interval` shape the returned snapshot, nor any timing or completeness caveats, though the schema and annotations reduce the burden.

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 one efficient sentence: it front-loads the single-call behavior, defines the scope as one trading pair, lists the major analysis categories, and states the intended downstream use. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 the read-only annotation, the existence of an output schema, and only one required parameter, the description is almost sufficient for an agent to call the tool. The main missing piece is the semantics of `interval` and `limit`, since the description does not clarify whether they affect the analysis window, sample size, or underlying data aggregation.

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 should compensate. It adds meaning for `symbol` ('single trading pair'), but it does not explain what `interval` or `limit` mean in the context of a market overview, nor how defaults and bounds affect the result. The parameter names and schema constraints are only partially self-explanatory.

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 clear verb and resource: it returns a complete analysis snapshot for one trading pair in a single call, covering market, liquidity, funds, sentiment, indicators, and derived values. It is clearly meant for direct AI interpretation and conclusion generation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with individual sibling tools, but the aggregate-scope is distinctive enough.

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 clearly indicates its intended use: when an AI needs a comprehensive single-pair overview in one shot and will interpret the results directly. It also restricts scope to a single trading pair. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe when not to use it in favor of a specific market/indicator endpoint.

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