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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not mention that cancellation is irreversible, whether it works on partially filled orders, whether it requires category pairing, or what happens if the order is already gone.

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?

Three words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no wasted text, but also no information to front-load. For a mutating tool with four undocumented parameters this is far too little.

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?

A destructive, unannotated, four-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions needs the description to compensate, and it provides none of that. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing at identifier semantics.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Critically, it never explains the orderId vs. orderLinkId distinction or why category is required even though the identifier alone might suffice.

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 clear verb+resource ('Cancel an order'), which is unambiguous against read siblings like get_open_orders and get_tickers. It does not, however, clarify scope (single order vs. by symbol vs. batch), which matters given the sibling place_order.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as canceling all open orders or modifying an order. The agent must infer everything about invocation context from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description discloses nothing about return contents, permissions, or behavior beyond the bare verb.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a virtue of precision.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information, and it does not explain what account fields are returned. For an information-retrieval tool in a crowded sibling set, this is too thin.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No parameter syntax or semantics are needed here.

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 verb (get) and resource (account configuration and info), but 'configuration and info' is vague and overlaps ambiguously with more specific siblings like get_wallet_balance and get_positions. An agent cannot tell exactly what data this returns or how it differs from those tools.

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 on when to use this versus get_wallet_balance, get_positions, or get_open_orders. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond purpose: no pagination behavior, no default time window, no ordering, no rate limits, no statement that it is a read-only query. The single implication that 'Get' is a read is the only behavioral signal.

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 single short phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but at this length it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity is not earning its place because required context is simply absent.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not clarify the relationship between start/end and interval, what the returned candlestick rows contain, or defaults when timestamps are omitted. Core calling context is missing.

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 67%: interval and the start/end/limit fields are documented in the schema, but 'symbol' and 'category' have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('candlestick data (K-line)'), and the parenthetical alias makes the intent unambiguous. It does not need to distinguish itself from siblings like get_tickers or get_orderbook since those are different resources, but it offers no scoping detail (which market, which exchange).

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or context for calling it. An agent must infer entirely from the name and schema that this is the historical/current OHLC series tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not whether it requires authentication, whether results are paginated (the limit param hints at it but is unexplained), or whether it returns all categories or only one. This is essentially zero disclosure for an API query tool.

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 short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no wasted text because there is almost no text at all, which fails the tool's documentation needs.

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 five-parameter query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine filtering behavior, pagination, or return shape from it.

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% across five parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain category (required), symbol, orderId, orderLinkId, or limit, leaving all filtering semantics undocumented.

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 merely restates the tool name, 'get_open_orders' → 'Get open orders'. It identifies a resource but adds no scope, no verb nuance, and no differentiation from siblings like get_positions or get_account_info. This is a tautology rather than a purpose statement.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_positions or get_orderbook, and no prerequisites or context. It offers nothing beyond a bare restatement of the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not state auth requirements, rate limits, whether data is real-time or snapshot, or how the limit behaves across categories.

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 single four-word sentence is front-loaded and technically concise, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with two required parameters and no annotations. Conciseness is achieved through omission rather than precision.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain orderbook depth, how limit is interpreted across spot/linear/inverse/option, or what the return contains.

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 only 33%; only limit has a schema description, while symbol and category are undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('orderbook data'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling market-data tools like get_tickers or get_kline, leaving the agent to infer that this returns orderbook depth rather than trades, tickers, or account data.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description does not say when to prefer this over get_tickers or get_kline, nor what category values mean for usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but nothing is said about auth requirements, scope, or what data is returned for positions.

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 single short clause is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economical structure — there is no substantive content to be front-loaded.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin for a 3-parameter query tool on positions. An agent cannot determine filters, defaults, or return shape from this definition.

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% with 3 parameters, one enum (category) and one required. The description adds no meaning about symbol, category, or settleCoin beyond what their bare names suggest, leaving the enum semantics and filtering behavior undocumented.

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 'Get position information' essentially restates the tool name get_positions with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from any sibling (get_tickers, get_account_info, get_orderbook) or clarify what 'position information' contains.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_account_info or get_wallet_balance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation and 'latest' implies current data, but there is no disclosure of rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness guarantees, or return format.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter retrieval tool.

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 and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return values, usage context, or behavioral constraints. Instead, it leaves 'ticker information' undefined and omits any indication of what the tool returns or when to prefer it over sibling tools.

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 both parameters are documented in the input schema. The description's 'for symbols' loosely maps to the symbol parameter and 'latest' implies current data, but it adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('latest ticker information') and is easy to distinguish from siblings like get_kline or get_orderbook by resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or specify what fields the ticker information includes.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_kline or get_orderbook. The intended use case is loosely implied by 'latest ticker information,' but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it omits details about authentication, rate limits, whether it returns all coins or only a specific one, and any other behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of completeness elsewhere.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain the return values (e.g., balance per coin, account-level aggregation) to help the agent interpret results. It fails to do so, leaving a significant gap for a tool whose output is not otherwise documented.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with an enum for accountType. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get wallet balance') and an implicit scope ('for the account'). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_account_info, so it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_info or get_positions. It only implies usage from the name, with no explicit context or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not explain that this is an irreversible financial mutation, whether authentication or a funded account is required, how the different order types behave, or what side effects or rate limits apply.

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 text is short but under-specified rather than concise — a three-word fragment leaves the agent with nothing actionable. Its only virtue is being front-loaded, but there is essentially no content to front-load.

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 high-stakes order-placement mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 22% parameter coverage, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent lacks the permission, order-type, and return-value context needed to call this safely.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters, and the description adds zero parameter meaning — it never explains symbol, category, side, orderType, qty, price, timeInForce, orderLinkId, or isLeverage. With 5 required params and 5 enums, the description fails entirely to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Place a new order'), so an agent instantly knows this creates an order rather than reading market data like the sibling get_* tools. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from cancel_order or to signal the trading semantics that separate it from its read-only siblings.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (authentication, margin/wallet balance), and no conditions under which an order should not be placed. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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