futures_all_book_tickers

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only warns about data volume. It lacks disclosure of rate limits, data freshness, authorization requirements, or other behavioral traits that an agent needs to know.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and a critical usage warning. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 description mentions '最优买卖挂单/买一卖一' (best bid/ask) but does not specify the return structure or fields. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more detail about the response format. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 single parameter 'symbol' is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The description repeats the schema's information and adds a warning, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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: retrieving best bid/ask order book for futures trading pairs. It distinguishes itself by noting that omitting symbol returns all pairs, which is a key differentiator from similar tools like futures_orderbook.

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 explicitly advises passing the symbol parameter to avoid large data volume, providing clear context for use. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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