futures_quick_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic trigger price calculation and conditional order placement, but does not detail execution type (market/limit), risk of partial fills, or impact on existing positions. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous words; every sentence is valuable.

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 high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple utility tool. It explains the automatic calculation and order placement. Could mention result feedback, but not required.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema descriptions, which are fairly detailed. No extra semantic value provided.

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 purpose: one-click setting of stop loss or take profit orders using current price and offset percentage. It uses a specific verb ('设置' - set) and resource ('止损或止盈单' - stop loss/take profit order), distinguishing it from general order tools like futures_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?

The description implies usage context (quick stop loss/take profit setup via percentage offset) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like futures_order or when not to use. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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