binance_futures_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits. It explains that mark price differs from last price, is the basis for settlement and forced liquidation, is more stable against manipulation, and that batch queries are limited to the first 100 active contracts. The output example also discloses the return structure and how to interpret funding rate and basis.

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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is verbose, including a multi-line output example with emojis. While the structure aids readability, the length exceeds what is strictly necessary for tool selection, but the output example is useful given the lack of an output schema.

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 no output schema, so the description compensates by providing a detailed output example and behavioral notes. It covers return format, interpretation of price discrepancy, funding rate implications, and market status. Combined with the use cases and warnings, the description is fully complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 already provides comprehensive parameter documentation for the optional `symbol`, including examples and behavior when omitted. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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: "获取合约市场的实时标记价格信息" (Get real-time mark price information for futures market). It uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (合约市场的实时标记价格), and distinguishes itself from spot price by emphasizing the mark price, which is the settlement and liquidation basis.

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 an "适用场景" (applicable scenarios) section listing contract trading reference, risk management, liquidation monitoring, and arbitrage analysis. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The explicit warning about the batch limit and the distinction from spot price provide additional guidance.

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