get_panel_large_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, providing the safety profile. The description adds information about the return content (buy/sell large and small order proportions) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as data source limitations, trading session dependencies, or interpretation nuances. This is a modest addition beyond the annotations, consistent with them.

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 sentence that starts with the primary action ('获取盘口大单占比') and then provides the return details. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The tool has a simple structure with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations. The description is complete enough for the core function, stating both the subject (large order proportions) and the output categories (buy/sell, large/small). Since there is no output schema, the description covers the return semantics reasonably well. It could benefit from additional context like how the proportions are calculated or any limitations, but for the tool's simplicity, it is largely sufficient.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'codes' parameter with a clear format and example: '股票代码数组，如 ["sz000858", "sh600519"]' (stock code array, e.g., ["sz000858", "sh600519"]). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: '获取盘口大单占比，返回买盘/卖盘的大单和小单占比' (Get the proportion of large orders in the order book, returning the proportion of large orders and small orders on the buy/sell side). It has a specific verb '获取' (get), a specific resource '盘口大单占比' (order book large order ratio), and details the output scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover quotes, fund flow, or klines.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The usage is implicitly suggested by the purpose: if a user needs large order proportions from the order book, this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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