get_l2_orderbook

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds behavioral context: returns 'aggregated price levels with total size and order count per level', 'Derived from L4 data', and a temporal limitation. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and data provenance.

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 with four sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, output specification, data derivation, and temporal scope. No superfluous information; front-loaded with essential details.

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 presence of an output schema (context indicates it exists) and well-documented input schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It explains the output format, data source, and tier requirement. Minor improvement could be clarifying the meaning of 'Build+ tier' or the relationship to sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (coin, timestamp, depth). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, which already adequately documents parameter usage. 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 'Get Hyperliquid L2 full-depth orderbook' with specific verb and resource. It mentions 'Build+ tier' and 'Derived from L4 data' to contextualize, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_orderbook or get_hip3_l2_orderbook, leaving some ambiguity.

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 fetching the current L2 orderbook with the 'Build+ tier' requirement and temporal constraint ('Data from March 2026+'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_l2_orderbook_history for historical data) or any when-not scenarios.

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