market_get_order_book

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting the tool is deprecated and Binance-specific, and explains that it returns bid/ask levels with quantities up to the requested depth. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, with a deprecation notice, a clear function statement, and a return-value summary in just two sentences. All content is relevant and no filler is present, though the deprecation notice could be seen as redundant given the 'Deprecated' tag, but it's still useful context. Front-loading the deprecation is logical.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with only two parameters, the description covers the essential context: purpose, exchange source, return content, and deprecation status. Annotations handle safety and idempotency. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by describing the return shape at a high level. However, it doesn't mention potential edge cases like invalid symbols or rate limits, but these are not critical for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100% — both symbol and limit have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond that, only hinting at the limit's effect via 'up to the requested depth.' Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline 3 is appropriate; no significant additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches the current order book depth for a trading pair from Binance, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Binance order book data, which none of the siblings cover. The deprecation note does not confuse the primary purpose.

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 opens with a clear deprecation warning and explicitly names ccxt_public_call and ccxt_describe_exchange as preferred alternatives for new integrations. This provides direct when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't elaborate on scenarios where the old tool might still be appropriate. The alternative naming is explicit and actionable.

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