get_orderbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the data comes from cache, is limited to L1, and depends on a prior subscription. It does not state the failure mode when the subscription is missing, but the key operational trait is clear.

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, dense sentences: one front-loads the action and prerequisite, the other documents the parameter. No filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema available. The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the critical subscription prerequisite, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema only says 'symbol' is a required string, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining symbol as a trading pair and giving a concrete example, BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE.

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 ('获取', get) and a precise resource: the best bid/ask prices from the cached L1 order book. This clearly distinguishes it from balance, position, ticker, and kline siblings without needing to name them.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: '需要先预订阅 bookl1' (must pre-subscribe to bookl1 first), and indicates the data is cache-backed rather than a live fetch. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses a 5.

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