get_l2_orderbook_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds that results are periodic aggregated snapshots, but does not expand on behavior beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core function and add key context. No extraneous words.

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 many sibling orderbook history tools, description clarifies this is for L2 historical snapshots with Build+ tier. Output schema exists. Could further differentiate from get_orderbook_history or explain pagination, but sufficient for most use cases.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter explanations. Description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (Get), resource (L2 full-depth orderbook checkpoints), and scope (over a time range). It distinguishes from siblings like get_l2_orderbook (current snapshot) and other orderbook history tools of different levels.

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?

Mentions 'Build+ tier' (access) and 'periodic aggregated orderbook snapshots over a time range' but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_orderbook_history. Siblings are numerous and naming provides some guidance, but more explicit when-to-use would help.

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