get_hip3_l4_orderbook

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open world. Description adds Pro+ tier requirement and case-sensitivity warning, but does not clarify timestamp necessity (schema marks it optional) or data freshness/rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action and key constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, lacks comparative context with many siblings (e.g., when to use L4 vs L2, HIP-3 vs HIP-4). Pro+ tier mentioned but not elaborated.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. Description reinforces case-sensitivity for 'coin' but adds no new meaning for 'timestamp' or 'depth'.

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 it retrieves a HIP-3 L4 orderbook reconstruction, specifying it is for Pro+ tier, symbols are case-sensitive, and returns full order-level data at a given timestamp. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_hip3_l2_orderbook and get_hip3_orderbook.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., L4 vs L2, real-time diffs vs historical reconstruction). Does not mention prerequisites or context for choosing this tool.

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