trading_commission

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

The description does not mention read-only nature or side effects, but the tool name and context (commission query) imply a safe operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden fully, but it is minimal. No negative side effects are expected.

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 concise sentence that includes the key elements: action, object, and qualifier (maker + taker). No extraneous information, front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description provides adequate context for an agent to understand the purpose. However, it could mention the return format or units (e.g., percentage) for completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage; the description does not add extra meaning to the 'symbol' parameter beyond the schema's example. The description's mention of 'maker + taker' provides context for the return value but not for parameter usage.

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 clearly states the action (获取) and the object (手续 rates for specified trading pair), specifying both maker and taker components. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are indicators, market data, or trading operations.

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 a simple query for commission rates without further context. While no alternative tools are mentioned, the sibling set contains no similar get-commission tool, so ambiguity is minimal. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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