subscribeLiquidation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only safety, but it adds almost no behavioral context. It does not explain whether this is a one-shot subscription that waits for messages, how timeoutMs and messageCount affect execution, or whether it opens a persistent stream. With only read-only and open-world annotations, the description carries too little behavioral weight.

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 concise phrase with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. It is efficient and scannable, though under-specified, so it does not earn a perfect 5.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and subscription semantics, the description is incomplete: it fails to explain return behavior, whether this starts a persistent subscription or a one-shot wait, or how it relates to startSubscription/stopSubscription. The annotations cover only read-only safety and open-world assumptions, leaving key invocation context 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?

None of the four parameters (symbol, category, timeoutMs, messageCount) is described; the description only names the data domain. The schema provides types, defaults, and an enum for category, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining symbol format, category meaning, and timeout/messageCount behavior, which it does not.

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 '订阅强平数据' identifies a specific action (subscribe) and a specific resource (liquidation data), which distinguishes it at a basic level from sibling tools like subscribeTickers or subscribeGreeks. However, it is a single Chinese phrase and does not clarify what 'liquidation data' includes or differentiate it from related feeds such as subscribeInsurance or subscribeAdlAlert, so it falls short of full clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to related tools like startSubscription/stopSubscription. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and parameter schema.

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