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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details beyond the schema: return contents (bids, asks, market metadata), timestamp units, data history start date, and the fact that limit/pagination_key are ignored when fetching the latest snapshot. It does not cover all possible behavioral aspects (e.g., ordering, pagination mechanics), but the provided details are substantive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides sequential conditional details (latest vs. historical, timestamp units, data availability, ignored params). Every sentence contributes necessary information with no fluff.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes return content (bids, asks, metadata) and covers key edge cases like the latest snapshot and data history start. It could be more explicit about ordering and response structure, but it is reasonably complete for a data-fetching 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying the latest-snapshot edge case and ignored parameters, but this information is already present in the schema descriptions. It does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 fetches historical orderbook snapshots for a specific token ID over a time range, with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the nearly identical sibling dome_orderbook_history_get, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (historical snapshots with start/end times, or latest snapshot if these are omitted) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when NOT to use it versus sibling tools like dome_market_price or dome_orderbook_history_get.

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