get_hip4_orderbook

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds important behavioral context: mark_price is an implied probability (0..1) not USD, and Pro+ tier is required. This helps the agent understand special behavior.

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 three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or verbosity.

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?

The description covers coin format variations, mark_price interpretation, and tier requirement. It does not mention the depth parameter, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall sufficient for a simple snapshot 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 baseline is 3. The description provides example coin formats and notes legacy forms, which reinforces the schema but adds minimal new semantic meaning for parameters.

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 a HIP-4 L2 orderbook snapshot for a coin, with specific examples of coin formats and a note on mark_price interpretation. It semantically distinguishes from siblings like get_hip4_l4_orderbook (L4) and get_hip3_orderbook (HIP-3).

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 implies usage for current L2 orderbook data vs. historical (get_hip4_orderbook_history) and L4 (get_hip4_l4_orderbook), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. It does mention a prerequisite (Pro+ tier).

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