用户费率

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add useful context about the inclusion of VIP discounts and BNB deduction in the returned rate, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies rate semantics.

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 sentence with a clear front-loaded action and the key scope immediately after it. It contains no filler, redundant phrasing, or repetition of schema or annotation details, earning its place efficiently.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read-only tool, and the description plus the available output schema are sufficient to guide a caller. The only minor gap is that the exact expected symbol format is not specified in the description, but the schema field name and simple shape keep the completeness high.

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 has no description for the 'symbol' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by identifying the parameter as the '指定交易对' (specified trading pair), which directly maps to 'symbol'. This gives essential meaning even if it does not specify the exact string format like 'BTCUSDT'.

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 ('返回') and a precise resource: maker/taker rates for a specified trading pair. It also adds detail about VIP discounts and BNB deduction, making it distinct from any market or position-focused sibling tools. There is no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 implies usage: call it to retrieve fee rates for a given trading pair. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but no sibling has a similarly direct fee-return purpose, so the context is reasonably inferable. The absence of explicit exclusions or alternative routing keeps it at a mid score.

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