steamdt_get_price_avg7d

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It indicates a read operation ('查询') but omits behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or data staleness. As a data retrieval tool, it is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, directly stating the tool's function and parameter flexibility. No redundant words, front-loaded with the core 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?

No output schema exists, so description must convey return value. It mentions overall and per-platform averages, which suffices. Could specify data format or time range boundaries, but the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the output.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context that the tool returns overall and per-platform averages, which goes beyond parameter descriptions. However, it does not introduce new parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 queries average prices for accessories over 7 days across all platforms, with per-platform breakdown. It explicitly supports the 'days' parameter for extended periods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'steamdt_get_price_single' (single point price) and 'steamdt_get_price_batch' (batch query).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies usage for time-averaged cross-platform prices, but does not mention alternatives like 'steamdt_get_price_single' for current price or 'steamdt_get_item_kline' for detailed candlestick data.

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