binance_get_optimal_trade_size

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the methodology (逐档累计价格影响), output format (报告), safety margin (20% liquidity buffer), dynamic nature (实时变动), and risk implications (market impact, batch execution advice). This gives the agent a thorough understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 verbose, with extensive emoji formatting, multiple repetitive warning sections, and a full mock output report. While well-structured with headers, the core message is scattered and the length is disproportionate for a tool description, failing the 'every sentence earns its place' test.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description provides a complete picture: detailed output example, technical details, usage scenarios, execution advice, and risk warnings. For a complex analysis tool, this is highly comprehensive and gives the agent all context needed to understand what the tool returns and how to interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter explanations (e.g., side affects liquidity analysis, maxPriceImpact defines acceptable slippage). The description's output example implicitly illustrates how maxPriceImpact and side are used, but it does not add direct semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 is an optimal trade volume calculator that minimizes liquidity impact using order book depth analysis. It uses a specific verb ('计算') and resource ('最优交易量'), and the detailed functionality ('深度分析市场流动性分布，计算不同交易量对价格的潜在冲击') distinguishes it from sibling tools like position sizing or order placement tools.

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 '适用场景' section explicitly lists when to use the tool (large trade assessment, institutional risk management, HFT optimization, liquidity research). It provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would have earned a 5.

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