get_hip4_l4_orderbook_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'periodic full order-level snapshots' and 'Hard cap limit=10 per request', but the limit claim directly contradicts the input schema's limit parameter (max 1000). This inconsistency harms transparency.

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 relatively concise with two main parts, but the contradictory hard cap statement adds confusion. It could be more concise by removing the misleading limit and focusing on the checkpoint nature.

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 5 parameters and existence of output schema, the description omits usage guidelines and contains a factual contradiction. It does not explain pagination beyond mentioning cursor, nor does it clarify the 'checkpoints' frequency. Incomplete for a history 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters comprehensively. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating coin format and mentioning the hard cap (which is contradictory). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves HIP-4 L4 orderbook checkpoints for a coin, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like orderbook diffs by mentioning 'periodic full order-level snapshots'. However, the hard cap limit statement is confusing and may mislead about the tool's actual behavior.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hip4_l4_orderbook or get_hip4_l4_diffs. The description implies it is for historical snapshots, but does not specify context or exclusions.

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