binance_spot_orderbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the order book changes rapidly ('订单簿数据实时变化，瞬息万变'), hidden iceberg orders may not appear ('大单可能不在订单簿中显示'), and data is for reference only. The output example also gives a sense of the response format. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the output is JSON vs a formatted string.

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 section headers (功能说明, 重要提醒, 适用场景, 输出示例) and uses emojis for readability. However, the output example is excessively long and takes up a large portion of the text, making it less concise. Every section earns its place, but the example could be trimmed to essential information.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by providing purpose, usage scenarios, warnings, and a detailed output example. It covers the essential aspects of the tool for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of explicit return type (JSON vs formatted text) and any error handling notes, but overall it is reasonably complete for a simple market data tool.

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 both 'symbol' and 'limit' already well-described in the input schema. The description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; for example, the output example shows '深度级别：10档' but that's just an illustrative value. The default value and enum are already in the schema.

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: '获取现货市场的买卖盘深度信息' (get spot market bid/ask depth information). It explicitly mentions displaying bid and ask price/quantity distribution and analyzing liquidity, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like price checkers 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 specific applicable scenarios (analyzing market depth, finding support/resistance, optimizing limit orders, assessing market impact), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with futures orderbook or using klines for historical analysis.

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