收支流水

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context (income negative means expenditure, incomeType consistent with official enum), but does not disclose pagination, ordering, time-range behavior, or response structure, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core return value, followed by the key convention about negative income and incomeType enum. There is no filler, though a bit more structure around parameters would improve completeness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what fields each record contains, but it does not. Parameter semantics are incomplete for 5 optional params, and time range behavior is not explained. In a large sibling family, these gaps make the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 must carry the burden for explaining parameters. It only clarifies incomeType via examples and the 'official enum' note. It does not explain limit semantics, symbol format, or startTime/endTime units/format, and schema itself lacks descriptions, leaving agents to guess.

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 resource ('流水记录' of funding fee, commission, realized PnL), so an agent can identify it as an income/expense history tool. It does not explicitly differentiate it from trading_commission, trading_trades, or trading_account, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like trading_commission or trading_trades. The intended use is only implied by the examples of income types, so agents browsing many siblings get little routing help.

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