mkt_ledger_query

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only asserts '只读' (read-only). It says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, defaults, volume of records, or what a query against a large ledger returns, which matters for an unfiltered 0-required-param call.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the resource and filter scope. Nothing is padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of accuracy rather than being purely efficient.

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 simple read tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable but leaves the parameter meanings and the return shape undocumented. The phantom action/target filters make it incomplete in a way that could mislead.

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 should compensate, but it names action and target as filters that do not exist in the schema while omitting any explanation of limit or the accepted format of result. This mismatch actively risks the agent passing parameters the tool will reject.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (账本查询, ledger query) and names the filter dimensions, which distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like mkt_search or mkt_audit. The lack of a title and the terse phrasing keep it from fully articulating scope, such as which ledger or time window.

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 to use this versus nearby tools such as mkt_audit, mkt_result, mkt_search, or mkt_progress. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the name and filter list.

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