获取加密货币分析报告

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'supports automatic retries,' which is helpful. However, it does not mention other important aspects such as data freshness, rate limits, or whether the report is static or dynamic. The AI nature implies potential latency but is unstated.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and adds a key behavioral note (retry) in the second sentence. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose and one behavioral feature. However, it omits what the report contains (e.g., text, figures), possible response time, and any limitations. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return format would improve 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 covers 100% of parameters with clear description (symbol format). The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance or examples. Per the guidelines, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: obtaining Binance's AI analysis report on cryptocurrencies. It specifies the verb ('get') and the resource ('Binance AI report'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like okx_prices or stock analysis tools, though the domain is clearly different.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states it is 'very useful for analyzing cryptocurrencies' without specifying contexts, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. No explicit comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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