成交记录

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'per-transaction trade records for a specified pair' but does not disclose pagination, ordering, rate limits, or other behavioral details.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with the returning verb and core resource. It is efficient, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity, and is not as hollow as a pure tautology.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient. The description omits return fields, pagination, ordering, error conditions, and the role of optional parameters, so an agent cannot fully understand the call result or edge cases.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only implies the symbol parameter via '指定交易对'. It does not explain limit or orderId semantics, even though orderId is a non-obvious filter that needs clarification.

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 that the tool returns '逐笔成交记录' (trade-by-trade transaction records) for a specified trading pair, which gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like trading_order_history or trading_force_orders, 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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as trading_order_history, market_klines, or market_trades. The description simply says what it returns, not when to choose it over the many similar sibling tools.

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