条件单列表

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scoping detail that only current un-triggered conditional orders are returned, but it does not mention pagination, output shape, or what happens when symbol is omitted. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the return purpose, and contains no filler. It is appropriately compact, though its terseness is part of why some semantic and routing details are missing.

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 read-only list endpoint with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what is returned, that the orders are current and un-triggered, and that symbol can be used. Pagination or response shape details would be nice, but are not critical for making the call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'symbol 可选'. This conveys that symbol is optional, but it does not explain the symbol format, whether omitting it returns all symbols, or whether it functions as an exact filter. For a one-parameter tool this is workable, but the description does not fully compensate for the empty schema.

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 the specific operation: return currently pending, un-triggered conditional orders. The qualifier '条件单/未触发' clearly distinguishes this from related order endpoints like trading_open_orders, trading_order_history, and trading_get_order.

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 identifies the intended context: retrieving current conditional orders, with symbol as an optional filter. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or which sibling endpoint to choose for regular open orders, historical orders, or single-order lookups, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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