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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already present, the description adds meaningful extra behavioral context: the snapshot is instantaneous, large walls can vanish or be spoofed, and this tool alone is insufficient for market-maker detection. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, then adds a crucial caveat and a concise summary/full explanation. It is slightly dense with mixed-language punctuation but every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the duty of giving an agent sense of the return. It explains the summary vs full return philosophy, warns about wall volatility, and references supporting docs. It doesn't fully explain all aggregated metrics, but the docs pointers help.

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%, and the schema already documents defaults and enums. The description enriches semantics by explaining that summary mode returns roughly the top 10 levels plus the largest wall, while 'detail: full' returns all levels up to limit. This adds practical parameter understanding beyond 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Snapshot order book (bid/ask) real-time' and immediately states the analysis purposes (wall besar, spread, likuiditas). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling order-book tools by emphasizing the snapshot nature, not persistence or imbalance.

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 explicit caveats: snapshot is momentary, walls can disappear in seconds (potential spoofing), and at least 3 aligned signals are required before concluding market-making activity, with a docs pointer. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like binance_get_orderbook_wall_persistence, but the snapshot caveat implies the distinction.

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