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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that asks/bids represent maker direction, that taking one flips the side, that each level includes cumulative depth and payment methods, and that nothing executes automatically. The warning that the best bid can sit at or above the best ask is especially valuable.

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: the first sentence states exactly what the tool provides, and the second paragraph adds necessary interpretive detail. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It names the market, the sides, the fields available at each price level, the meaning of asks and bids, and the unusual non-executing nature of the order book. An agent can select and interpret the tool correctly without further information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no input schema gap to compensate for. The description instead clarifies the meaning of output fields like asks, bids, depth, and reversible flag, which is useful context beyond the empty 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 identifies the resource: the live Haveno XMR/USD order book, both sides, priced against centralized spot. It differentiates from all siblings by naming a unique resource and scope, and the implicit verb 'returns' is obvious from context.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: whenever live Haveno XMR/USD order book data is needed. It also explains that offers are advertisements, not a matched book, which manages expectations. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but among the siblings this is the only order-book tool.

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